The Religious Right Plays Checkers, Dems May Win Again At Chess

Well the primaries are almost over here in the red state, and so my time of pointing and laughing will sadly come to a close and I shall actually have to make a decision for the general.  As a swing voter, my vote really doesn’t matter unless I’m voting in a Republican primary.  However, I still vote my conscience regardless and consider occasionally moving.  After my urge to kill abated today, I began to seriously consider a few things on the national scale, namely what this may mean to the largest voting bloc in our country- single women.

While I am a person of faith, the recent rulings for elimination of the buffer zones and that certain companies may choose which forms of birth control they wish to cover holds more of an economic challenge that I am now trying to conceptualize.  If you want to know about my faith, you feel welcome to sit with me any Sunday at Northside Drive Baptist Church, come serve in VBS in Taliaferro County, or volunteer with me through Habitat, the Junior League of Atlanta, Inc., etc, etc.  My actions speak my faith so that my words do not have to.  Here, I will stick to a discussion of economic impact and political ramifications.

The engagement of the single woman in politics is difficult.  She knows what she wants and is busy trying to compete: professionally (who doesn’t want to climb the ladder?), physically (gotta at least keep the fat rolls at bay), and socially (who wants to stay at home on a Saturday night?).  She has been told by the same folks who lied to her mother that she can have it all.  So politics fall down on the priority list until she’s voting for President.  If she’s married, she might be influenced by her partner.  But single women (whether those who have not yet married, are divorced, or their partner has passed) are influenced by other things.  And now that this group of people make up the largest voting group in the nation, their votes are coveted, elusive, and every consultant I know wants to crack ’em.

Problem is, social issues like these drive women to the polls….and they drive them to the left.  As the prevalence of the church wanes, and social conservatives seek relevance, people are turned off by moral arguments and women more often lean left.  I’m pretty solidly middle of the road, but I’m also solidly pro-choice.  Many women, even those who would never consider abortion have difficulty understanding why its taken so long to get insurance coverage for their mammograms, their birth control choices and pelvic exams.  You see, these all economically impact women; particularly birth control methods.  

We all know that conception of an unplanned child alters men and women’s lives.  The fact is though, that birth control choices also make an economic impact in a woman’s life.  The most effective method of birth control is an IUD.  Hobby lobby doesn’t want to pay for them.  In 2007, an IUD cost 27-year-old me $1,600- that didn’t include the doctor’s visit.  I also had to go round and round with my insurance company at the time.  Meanwhile, my last three boyfriends had no idea what an IUD was- even the two who had been married.  These things are not ones they have to consider.  Contraception outside of condoms seem to not weigh as much on their minds.  Maybe it was just them- maybe other men discuss their partner’s birth control methods over beers on the regular.  I do not pretend to know what goes on at “guys’ nights”.

Recently, I purchased a plan on the marketplace as a result of the ACA, and found out that while I would still have to pay for the doctor’s visit, the IUD this time around was free.  I have no idea what they cost, but I’m betting it’s more than $1,600 after a five year gap.  This is real savings for women.  This affects their pocketbooks- and in case you weren’t aware, that can buy you a lovely Chanel bag.  At the same time, single women in childbearing years are better able to plan their destinies this way, and can follow whatever career goals they may have-a la Dagny Taggart.

So while the social conservatives claim victory for today, the DNCC is thanking their lucky stars.  SCOTUS just gave them a theme for the convention and a carpet on which Hill can ride to the nomination.  The ACA that many women this year can thank for giving them more options in birth control methods has just been carved into and that carving celebrated by the minority within the GOP.  They will celebrate this victory and will again miss the engagement of the single female voter, who knows well what she wants and typically waits to cast her vote.

In chess, the game is played through a longer ball strategy that engages the pieces at differing times to reserve the powerful players for the most decisive moves.  Knight, then Rook, then Bishop are typically used.  And you know which piece is the most powerful and moves the fastest when engaged, right?  It’s the queen.



  1. There are 20 contraceptives mandated by ObamaCare to be covered… Hobby Lobby only objected to 4 of them. These 4 cause a fertilized eggs to be expelled from the body (abortion drugs). If the media adequately explained this to their viewers/listeners/readers, then it would not have much of an electoral impact.

    Yes, the liberals will have a field day with this… and if the majority of voters are so weak minded as to throw freedom of religion out the window for the sake of a few dollars, then we deserve what we get.

    • IUD’s primarily work to prevent fertilization before it happens (but can also cause a fertilized egg to be expelled but rarely so).

      But if you’re really a complete whack job on this issue, and God wants a baby to happen every time a man and a woman have sex then why do you think condoms or the pill are any better than an IUD or even an abortion?

      Put another way why is the morning after pill not ok but it’s ok to take a pill that prevents you from ovulating in the first place? Doesn’t God want women to ovulate so their eggs can be fertilized?

      • John Vestal says:

        The primary mechanism of the ‘morning after’ pill is also the prevention/delay of ovulation….it’s simply a higher dose of the same hormone in many daily-dose oral contraceptives. Both the morning-after pill and daily pills have the potential (statistically similar) to prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum (blastocyst) if ovulation has occurred. Neither can cause an abortion once implantation has taken place.

        • Scarlet Hawk says:

          Thanks much, for pointing this particular point out, Chris and John. A lot of the messaging on this was around abortion- people who know what birth control methods this ruling specifically affect recognize that certain birth control aren’t in fact used exclusively for that.

          As always, thanks also for taking the time to read my post!

        • tribeca says:

          John’s right, I believe (this is rough math) that 4 daily-dose oral contraceptives (a.k.a. “the pill”) are equal to the dosage of the Plan B pill. A few of my friends have resorted to this approach when they’ve forgotten to take the pill and don’t want to go out and fork over the cash for Plan B.

  2. HCL3 says:

    The economic impact on women is zero – this whole controversy is more about harassing people of faith than anything else

    “But I’m dismayed at how many friends who style themselves “liberals,” even recognizing the ruling will make no immediate difference in employee access to contraception, seem to regard it as an appalling betrayal that the Court refused to license what amounts to purely symbolic compulsion of people with retrograde ideas. If we accept that the exemption here makes no functional difference to whether people are covered, however, that’s the only rationale left for insisting on direct purchase of coverage by employers—and not, I had thought, a legitimate rationale for government coercion in a liberal democracy.”

    • Scarlet Hawk says:

      I read this article last night and normally can find a lot of common ground with CATO. But my example above refutesthat. Quoting a philisophcal think-tank doeesn’t make your point true, it just articulates a perception. This does have impact and it will behoove the right to beome more acquainted with this in order to win the votes of women.

      • HCL3 says:

        If female employees of closely held for profit corporations end up with the same coverage for birth control as employees of exempt non-profit religious business then explain to me how any of this matters. If there is no economic impact on women then this decision only matters if you are trying to shove your values down the throats of religious people.

        Of course, this is all putting aside the ridiculous idea that someone else should be forced to pay for your birth control.

        • Scarlet Hawk says:

          So here’s where the religious/secular argument looses traction with me: believe what you want; practice what you believe, as an individual and in a group, but when a law has mandated that all for-profit companies provide a certain amount of coverage for people, then you go back and retract that coverage b/c this company is “special”? I could almost go along with the religious argument except for the fact that- yes, that’s right- this isn’t a religious institution. It is a for-profit company that should find equal protection and requirements under the law.

          All in all, my post actually wasn’t even about the Hobby Lobby decision being right or wrong though- we can agree to disagree on that. My post was about the fact that this will be something the Democrats will ride to the ballot box on in regards to the single female vote.

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        So, anecdotal example > think tank article.

        If anything they’re about the same. But, for what it’s worth, it *should* tell you something about the popularity of your position when the atheists at Cato are on the same side as the religious folk at Hobby Lobby (but again, this isn’t so much a religious issue as it is property rights, Cato probably wouldn’t have spoken up otherwise).

        I mean, you’re coming across as a bit selfish since it sounds like you’re hissy-fitting that someone won’t pay for your ability to have (relatively) care-free sex, and then threatening to make it a political issue at the polls when you don’t get what you want.

        To be even more blunt:

        If an army of single women shows up to vote Democrat in the November elections simply because they want someone else to pay for a device to let them to have all the sex they want, then you needn’t worry that this ruling being a “step backwards” for women. If that’s the depth of a woman’s thought-process and the driving factor in her voting choices, then they’re a few thousand steps behind anyway, at the least.

        But thank goodness there are women (and men) out there who don’t just vote on what they want, and make more sound decisions, rather than trying to figure out how much they can take away from others using the force of government.

        I don’t think this issue will have as great an electoral impact as you wish it to have. I think you’re upset that you paid for an IUD that you wanted (which is different from ‘needed’), had to work really hard to get insurance to cover it, so you could buy something else you also wanted (again, not: “needed”). And now you want the GOP to give you exactly what the Democrats are offering, and even though you seem to agree completely with the democratic stance on this issue, you act like you’re wavering on the fence as to who you’re gonna vote for in November.

        Again, if this is the depth of a woman’s voting decisions, I think you are selling women short, and the only ‘war on women’ around here is the one you’re waging.

        • Scarlet Hawk says:

          So first off, you don’t know me and I don’t know you personally, so I think we’ll leave assumptions of my or other women wanting to “have all the sex they want” and that I wanted to have my insurance company pay for something so that I “could buy something else [I] also wanted” just where they are- as assumptions.

          Also, I challenge anyone to look up my voting history. I am an Independent. Pull my Primary ballots (anyone with any campaign experience can do it, and I do). I am a swing voter and I don’t party affiliate. I’e worked with candidates from both parties and said so in my introductory post. I know this is different, but that’s me and I ask no one else to follow my lead. I am liberal on social issues, and if I don’t pass your litmus test of conservatism, then that’s fine by me.

          That said, I’m not making it a political issue; it is one. And it’s one that is important to women- conservative, liberal, and all shades in between.

          The point of the post, again, was to remind the members of the GOP that sang victory yesterday that you’re pushing women to the left and while you have won this battle, may in fact lose the war. You are right that women do vote on a variety of issues- gosh darnit, we have brains too! But this IS an unquestionably large issue of insurance coverage that specifically affects women.

          I’m really surprised that no one has pointed out my reference to elimination of buffer zones as well- that was bothersome to me, but it was really the combination of the two rulings that have me speaking out and stating the obvious: the religious right is nationally on the decline and if the GOP aligns with them, I seriously question whether they will have the female vote. This is the stuff that is touted in the #WarOnWomen. I personally don’t support this idea of a war on anyone, but it makes for great campaign fodder and I hope Republicans will come up with some innovative solutions to situations like this to avoid this getting swept up into that tide.

          • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

            While America may have a few very-liberal people and places, don’t be fooled into thinking that the country is as liberal as you seem to want it to be.

            • Dr. Monica Henson says:

              Coverage of birth control by insurance plans is not a liberal issue. It is a women’s health issue–that is the point that Scarlet Hawk is making. If Republicans consider women’s health a “liberal” cause, then they will drive Republican women voters to vote Democrat. By maintaining opposition to reproductive choice, and making it clear that it is not just the abortion question, but the morality of single women having sex outside of marriage that is a key driver, the GOP will doom the Republican party. More than half the voting population is female, and females vote “liberal” on women’s health issues. The only thing Scarlet Hawk is not quite on the mark with is that it won’t just be single women of childbearing age who will flock to the Democratic candidates come election time–many of us who are now grandmothers still consider the reproductive choice issue to be a defining factor in our voting decisions. And there are an awful lot of us who are quite conservative on other issues, and a surprising number who are registered Republicans.

        • Dr. Monica Henson says:

          I am past the age of needing birth control coverage, having had a hysterectomy that, yes, was covered surgery under my group health insurance policy, a few years ago. I do remember as a young wife working full-time that my health insurance plan at the time covered neither birth control prescriptions nor mammograms, which I felt was unfair in the extreme. I was paying health insurance premiums plus having to spend out-of-pocket on basic health care services.

          However, as the mother of a 26-year-old daughter, this issue is very important to me even now that I am not in need of birth control, covered or otherwise . I fail to understand the argument by those on the far right who disapprove of single women “having all the carefree sex they want” or whatever they purchase birth control for (it’s used for myriad other health issues) that said women “want other people to pay for” their imagined nightly sexual romps all over Christendom. The very women who are advocating that health insurance cover birth control are also contributing premium payments to those health insurance plans.

          Interestingly, it’s quite often Republican men who rant against the rights of those they believe to be sluts, whores, trollops, etc. The “War on Women” is very, very real. Like the Tea Party that now drives moderate Republicans to distraction, those who wage war against reproductive choice will drive moderate Republican women to vote Democrat. I don’t believe that droves of GOP women will switch parties. Many of them won’t speak up about their decision–they will, however, cross the aisle once safely in the privacy of the voting booth, and press the Democratic button. My generation of female voters, regardless of party affiliation, will do this for the same reason–to preserve for their daughters and granddaughters the rights and safeties that our mothers and grandmothers didn’t have, and that we didn’t have until after we’d already entered the workforce and contributed to the health insurance plans that refused for years to cover our basic health needs.

  3. seenbetrdayz says:

    Let’s try an analogy:

    I’m a steadfast 2nd amendment supporter, but I don’t advocate that private businesses should be forced by government edict to allow me to carry on their property. Why? Because it is their property and they should be free to set the rules. If I had my own business, I’d want the freedom to set what policies I would want. I’m also free to not do business with companies that don’t support my right to self defense. I haven’t shopped at Starbucks in years. It’s not that complicated.

    The 2nd Amendment is plainly written in the Constitution that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but if I approached it the way you are, not only would I demand government to force private companies to let me carry guns on their property, I’d be demanding my boss buy me a new rifle on top of that.

    —But it doesn’t work that way when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. And it shouldn’t work that way when it comes to birth control.

    • Scarlet Hawk says:

      Your analogy is faulty from the get go as birth control regulates the body of the individual, not whether or not that individual can protect itself from harm against another individual.

      Further, this was a right, that was created by the ACA. This whole argument was actually debated in Congress via the Amendment process of the ACA. You may not llike that fact, but it was. You may also debate whether or not that right shoud have been given. Tht’ a ebate about the ACA. The fact that I’m looking at is that his rulnig has altered that right and that many womenwill see this as a step backwards.

      I cannot blame them.

      • greencracker says:

        I would draw the Second Amendment analogy this way:

        It’s as if there were a government mandate that your insurance from your employer cover the purchase of guns that keep you from getting pregnant (because you can use them to scare off men,) but certain employers wanted to offer only rifles, not pistols.

        Well, heck, what if the man sneaks up close? Sometimes a rifle might not do. Sometimes I might need a pistol.

      • therightdirection says:

        Rights recognized in the Constitution trump “rights” legislated by Congress.

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        How is it faulty again? The 2nd Amendment is solidified in the Constitution as a right. Did they amend the Constitution to pass the ACA? I suppose that is a different argument.

        But I think you need to think about where rights come from. Your rights stop where Hobby Lobby’s owners’ begin.

        Look, if you want someone who will help your raise eyebrows about the mammograms and the pap-smears, I’ll help you take up that cause. It does make very little sense that these are serious health tests that aren’t typically covered by insurance providers. But I’m not gonna rally people to decry Hobby Lobby for not providing certain forms of birth control so you can have sex, to put it in perspective. I think while you are trying to figure out where rights come from (hint: not from government edict), you might want to consider a remedial lesson in ‘needs versus wants.’

        • Stefan says:

          I agree, it’s not a great analogy and it is being strained beyond its bounds here. The Hobby Lobby decision used a constitutional framework to reach its, in my view, erroneous conclusion, but it isn’t a constitutional case. It is a question about whether an agency created rule is violative of a 1990’s law, the RFRA.

          The RFRA essentially attempted to create an extension of 1st amendment rights through statute. That’s why the language of “substantial burden” and the analysis of whether the action is narrowly tailored to achieve an important government objective.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            How so? I think there are a lot of adults who have forgotten the difference in ‘needs versus wants.’ These are typically the voters who think they need someone to pay for their house so they can use the money they save on shelter to buy things like cable TV. Democrats are always happy to accommodate these people in exchange for their votes. Maybe scarlet should vote democrat?


            • Scarlet Hawk says:

              So I’m just now getting caught up on these responses, and I’m getting pretty tired of you educating peeps on needs vs. wants. Again, assumptions are NOT your friend. If you met me in person I think you’d find it EXTREMELY difficult to peg me in the entitlement crowd or one that cannot make fiscally responsible decisions.

              That said, it is becoming clearer and clearer you have no desire to court votes. Ok. Cool. But last time I checked, that’s how you win an election, how a candidate gains the power to vote and how laws are ultimately changed, budgets created, etc.

              Why would you NOT want me to vote Republican?

              • seenbetrdayz says:


                I’d rather you not vote at all. I mean, if the only reason you vote is to see how much you can force government to infringe on private property or first-amendment rights, or how much ‘free’ stuff you can loot, please, just stop voting. Don’t vote democrat, don’t vote GOP, please just . . . don’t vote.

            • Dr. Monica Henson says:

              The argument that safe, legal birth control covered by health insurance is a “want, not a need” is an insult to every woman. Misogynistic, paternalistic, condescending knuckle-draggers, please keep on voting Republican, and for the sweet love of Jesus, PLEASE keep on posting in public forums and loudly proclaiming how misguided and selfish young women of childbearing age are to “expect everyone else to pay for” their right to control their own bodies. This conservative female Democratic woman, who frequently votes Republican in state and local races, would like nothing more than to be limited in my voting choices to nothing but liberals. Good grief.

        • George Chidi says:

          “But I’m not gonna rally people to decry Hobby Lobby for not providing certain forms of birth control so you can have sex, to put it in perspective.”

          This sentiment is beginning to bother me.

          Hobby Lobby’s insurance covers Viagra and vasectomies, so that men can have sex with fewer consequences. Knocking women looking for similar results is lame.

        • uga2000 says:

          #1. You’ve hit upon the primary issue that I take from this situation… my rights should not stop where a business owners’ rights begin (be it my employer or otherwise). Corporate rights SHOULD stop where a person’s rights begin. And that’s what irritates me. The Court has signed off on a business owner’s right to assign his/her personal beliefs to his/her company, thereby allowing the business’ rights to trump the individual’s. It’s a very small step from “I don’t want to provide contraception because it is against my religion” to “I don’t want to hire/serve gay people because my religion doesn’t see them as equals,” for example. My concerns with this decision have far less to do with the specifics of the case than they do with the precedent that SCOTUS has set.

          #2. Providing a woman with birth control may in fact let her “have all the sex that she wants…” but in most cases, that is with a man. And, in a lot of those cases, it with the same man over and over again… a man that she is in a committed relationship with. Which therefore means that the birth control is just as much for him as it is for her. That’s where the term “family planning” comes in… responsible couples who want to engage in sexual activity but know that they aren’t ready to be parents or who don’t want to be parents at all choosing the best and safest way to do so. To assert that women want to be able to opt for different forms of birth control because it allows them to have “all the sex they want” is patently offensive, misogynistic, and downright idiotic.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            Okay then. Let’s pass a law to make private companies buy assault rifles for all their employees. It’s either the same or it isn’t.

            Buy me a cannon, Hobby Lobby! Or I’m gonna take my vote somewhere else! War on men! They’re gonna lose the male vote! We’re the King. You can’t win the game without capturing us!

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            And, this is too personal to even ask, but since you bring up the fact that there was a male in this relationship:

            Where was this boyfriend when she had to shell out $1,600 on her own for an IUD? Wasn’t he enjoying at least $800 worth of the sex? I can do androgyny, too.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            When you talk about ‘being responsible’ and yet you want other people to pay for your lifestyle, all that talk about personal responsibility goes out the window. After that point, you’re at the mercy of whomever is paying your bills. If all they want to offer for birth control is a pamphlet on abstinence, that’s their choice. Otherwise, you can save up the $1,600 and have all the responsibility you want.

      • SingingLawyer says:

        The contraception coverage mandate was not “a right created by the ACA.” It is a rule that was promulgated by HHS and not part of the ACA as passed–it was imposed on everyone by a government agency. “Rights” are not created by agency rule-making and to argue that women have the “right” to have every form of birth control under the sun paid by their employer is lunacy. I’m a woman and I do not vote based on who will give me “free” stuff because I know I’m paying for the “free” stuff!

        • Scarlet Hawk says:

          I may be wrong here, but I’m pretty sure Ginsburg references the amendments to the ACA in her dissent. The first was that of the Women’s Health Amendment that furthered coverage of mammograms, birth control, etc. and then cites a RFRA as a means of curtailing some of the coverage as it applies to religious based institutions, non-profits, etc.

          I could be wrong, but that’s how I read it.

          I do agree with your assertion about rights though- rights (in my mind) are God given, I meant the term rights to be more in the since of protected aspects under the law. The ACA extended coverage of certain birth control methods, this ruling carves into that coverage. this means that the cost of your birth control (if you choose to purchase it) and mine are cost shared, making it more affordable (not free) for everyone who takes part. It’s a nifty way of doing things- this insurance thing.

          Problem is, as a woman this ruling affects only us. Not anyone else’s coverage.

          Maybe this isn’t something that bothers you. To me, that seems really bizarre and one-sided. it’s cool if it doesn’t light a fire under you, but I’ve got a TON of girl friends who are not normally engaged in the political process who are pretty pissed about this.

          And again, that was the point of my post- it’s a lightening rod issue that if the GOP doesn’t get in front of- will cost them some votes.

          But agree or no, I appreciate that you took the time to read my post. 🙂

          • TheEiger says:

            “I could be wrong, but that’s how I read it.” You read it wrong.

            Sebelius, “Directed our department (HHS) to develop a package of preventive health services for women. We’ve done just that.”

            We = HHS. This is not a part of the ACA it’s a HHS rule. Yes the ACA directed them to come up with what would be covered, but it is the rule from HHS that is in question.

          • SingingLawyer says:

            The amendment said that women’s preventive services need to be covered without cost-sharing (meaning that the insured doesn’t pay a co-pay or anything towards the cost)–it did not specify all methods of contraception. It is the later HHS regulation that Hobby Lobby and others challenged which said that all FDA-approved methods of contraception must be provided without cost sharing.

            It’s here if you need help sleeping:

            I understand that this is a lightening rod issue for women because reproductive rights are such a sensitive topic, but I’m not going to compromise my conservative principles and say that the government should just start paying for whatever certain voting blocks want it to pay for. Because the more mandates we add to plans the more expensive they get for everyone. And I also think religious freedom is more important than someone else’s desire to have their birth control method of choice entirely paid for by someone else.

            No insurance plan covers everything, and if someone else is paying for your medical care, they will have a say in what is covered and what is not. Most of the health care I use isn’t covered by insurance–dental, eye care, and allergy treatment–and I pay for it all out of pocket. I don’t make the argument that my employer is denying me these things because they don’t pay for it. To me this issue goes away if we move away from employer-sponsored plans. If everyone could get the equivalent of that benefit in wages (for me it would be about $25,000), we could purchase a lot of health care AND Chanel bags!

    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

      seenbetrdayz, July 1, 2014 at 2:52 am-

      Excellent points and excellent comments.

  4. seenbetrdayz says:

    To put in another way:

    Imagine that YOU are the business owner and you decide that you WILL offer IUDs as a birth control method. And suppose for a moment that someone in government decided that they would FORCE you to STOP offering that as an option.

    I’d be willing to bet that queen of yours would be knocking her own chess pieces out of the way for a chance to get out front and make an impact, in defense of IUD-supporting business owners everywhere.

    You’re diluting the argument by making this about religion. It is about private property, and the right of a business owner to run his/her business as he/she sees fit.

    (And if you really want that Chanel bag, there’s a way to save up money for it which doesn’t require birth control at all, but it does require a large degree of self-restraint, and given that you seem to NEED someone to buy your birth control for you, well . . . I guess it’s not really an option.)

    • Scarlet Hawk says:

      I think you may have skipped over the part of the article where I said I paid for the IUD myself. And where I talked about owning my own business. The point I’m making here is that Democrats have offered the payment of this- whch I equated to that of a Chanel bag- not that I equated anyone buy me a Chanel bag, and thereforethis makes an economic impact in women’s lives?

      You can create all the analogies you want. This decision means wommen will have to start looking at what coverage is offered at certain companies before they agree to work there- altering their ability to compare apples to apples when seeking a job.

      This has larger implications for women in the workplace. Period.

      • Scarlet Hawk says:

        Actually, You’re right- I didn’t include that part of my own story. I paid for the IUD in full and sought reimbursement afterwards from my insurance company. I felt so strongly about this that I paid for it up front. Thankfully, I was reimbursed (hence going round and round with my insurance company), but it was my own money on the line.

      • Jon Richards says:

        “This decision means women will have to start looking at what coverage is offered at certain companies before they agree to work there- altering their ability to compare apples to apples when seeking a job.”

        I don’t get this. Aren’t there always externalities that come into play when deciding whether to accept a new job? Easy example: two job offers, otherwise identical, from companies, one of which is a 10 minute commute and the other a two hour commute. Of course, there are always going to be multiple considerations, but in a free society, you look at the various offerings and choose the one that fits best with your needs and interests.

        • Scarlet Hawk says:

          Jon, the most glaring difference in your analogy is that this doesn’t affect men at all. So this ruling only affects a specific group unilaterally vs. a commute can affect anyone.

          Second, one of the reasons this coverage was mandated through the ACA was to make it easier for people to compare plans- no matter where you live, no matter what income level. Your employer, the marketplace, etc. had to offer the same basic coverage.

          This ruling isn’t about religious liberty IMHO at all. It is about setting a precedent to further challenge the ACA.

          Regardless of our difference of opinion, thanks ever so much for taking the time to read my post :).

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        “Democrats have offered the payment of this”

        So what?

        Democrats offer a lot of things that aren’t theirs to give. So, if you think the government has a ‘right’ to hold guns to peoples’ heads and force them to give you what you want, then vote democrat anyway. That’s pretty much their entire gig, and it sound like what you’re looking for as a voter.

        • Scarlet Hawk says:

          Ok. I’m done with replying to you.


          I will ask again, why would you NOT want someone to vote Republican?

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            Why would you want republicans to act like democrats on the issue when it’s simply easier to just vote democrat? Democrats are already well established on issues when it comes to giving gov’t too much power.

            You do realize that we have 2 parties so that we can have something different to choose between in November. (however, whether there is actually any real difference between them, is totally up for consideration).

  5. Mensa Dropout says:

    Hobby Lobby is a private company, and should not be dictated to by the government.
    As a woman, and a pro-choice woman at that, I will be driving the extra fifteen minutes to JoAnns to ensure that I, as a consumer, can walk with my feet.
    Hobby Lobby should be able to decide what is right for its company and its company’s beliefs. They will probably not lose business, but they have lost mine (unless there’s a Chanel bag there with a 40% coupon that I missed). They do seem to be short good staff, though, which points to Scarlett’s argument.
    I appreciate people who stick to their convictions. I applaud those who do so. If I disagree, and I do in this case, I will choose to shop somewhere else.

    • Dr. Monica Henson says:

      I disagree that private companies “should not be dictated to by the government,” although I’m no screaming liberal. What if a private company decides not to put ADA-compliant elevators and restrooms in its buildings? What if a private company decides not to permit female employees to continue working if they become pregnant and have children? What if a private company decides that it’s undesirable to hire any black employees, regardless of the qualifications of applicants? Should those companies be able to decide what is right for its employees?

  6. greencracker says:

    Scarlet, thank you for writing about birth control so frankly for this male-heavy audience. The reason your bfs didn’t know about IUDs is because we don’t clue them in & they don’t bother to clue themselves in about birth control.

    I encourage any fellers who don’t know to read up on some of awesome side effects of the pill (the method of which I’ve always been a devotee) in regards to slowing/stopping/controlling the menstrual spigot. I confess my ignorance on IUDs and periods, but this post got me curious and sent me to studying up … looks like it might have some monthly benefits. Maybe it’s something I’ll ask my doctor about.

    But anyway, the fact is, companies like Hobby Lobby and whoever else doesn’t want to put all birth control on their insurance are losing out by discriminating against women and foregoing their talents. That’s more than half of today’s college graduates there, HL!

  7. Scarlet,

    My thoughts won’t fit into a bite-sized comment, so bullets are below.

    – We disagree. My succinct response is “…then don’t work at Hobby Lobby.” I do think, however, that Hobby Lobby’s HR dept should make deviations from standard insurance coverage clear during the interviewing process.

    – As a single woman concerned with the economic impact of everything as it relates to me, we still disagree on this issue. A woman can pay for her own IUD if her company has religious exceptions… or she can find gainful employment at a place more in line with her own beliefs.

    – Political ramifications aside, how do you not see this as a straight-forward First Amendment issue?

    – Vote on a company’s religious policies, customer service policies, and everything else…with your dollars. Choose to work at a company with the same things in mind. I will still buy from Hobby Lobby just as I still inhale a #7 at Chick-fil-a twice a week.

    – I’d never have an abortion, but I’m Pro-Choice. If we, as Christians, did a better job of loving and helping each other, mindsets would be changed as children were growing up. Everything leading up to getting (or not getting) pregnant is a series of decisions that start from childhood. There’s no way in hell I would’ve considered bringing a child into this world prior to now. My means of preventing that are my decision.

    – Quick personal background: I grew up in a STRICT religion – no cutting hair, no wearing make-up, no dating non-church members, no organized sports/events with non-believers, no education for ANYone (not just women). My father died when I was 12 because he would not seek medical treatment for cancer because of this religion. I received “religious exemption” on vaccinations throughout school and did not go to a doctor until I was 15 – and it was only a simple physical exam so that I could get a medical release in order to play soccer in high school. My mother gave up the fight at that point knowing that I would leave home sooner if she didn’t comply. When I say I escaped to put myself through school and travel the world, that’s not a stretch.

    – What did all of that do? It caused a streak of rebellion that lasted through my late 20s. Shackles will never again be put on me. My return to Christianity was at the purest level and (after studying all religions) finding what I believe to be the truth…. love all.

    – I fervently believe in both the Freedom of Religion and the Freedom from Religion.

    And comically, my preferred method of contraception is telling my boyfriends that I’m not on any kind of birth control. If we get pregnant, I’d definitely keep the baby and be tied to him for 18 years. Does he remember the birth control? Every. Time. 😉

    • Three Jack says:


      Thank you for the brutal honesty as only you can provide with that humorous but effective close. After reading through all the posts on this topic, I think yours sums it up best.

    • John Konop says:


      My oldest is a third year in college….I would guess way closer to your age than mine….Your post is very representative of what the under 40 people think……This is why the GOP is heading onto a storm in my opinion….The biggest winner in this ruling will be Hillary Clinton, and the women who run with her in 16…..They will make this a cornerstone issue…..Finally, from a fiscal prospective…..I would love to hear how we would not promote the use of birth control for single people…..75% of single young mothers end up taking some form of welfare. It is irrational to take this choice away….I like you believing in God is about love….not about forcing what you belief on other people…..No one is forcing anyone to take birth control…..

  8. Scarlet Hawk says:

    My assertion in this article isn’t really about whether or not Hobby Lobby is right or wrong. We can disagree on this issue, as we have before. My assertion is that by advocating this as a “win” the moral minority and GOP will continue to lose female votes. This wouldn’t matter normally, but the prevalence of single women deciding elections IS actually something with which Congressional and Presidential candidates have to concern themselves.

    I’ll try to come back and reply point to point- I love bullet points too, but I have to run to a meeting. Stay tuned, and ALWAYS- thanks for reading.

    • TheEiger says:

      Your entire argument that Republicans are waging a holy war against women is absurd. I said it on the other post and I’ll say it here. Where is your outrage over government bureaucrats telling Medicare patients what procedures they can have or where they can buy their prescriptions and durable medicare equipment? Medicare is 100 times worst than what you are claiming is happening at Hobby Lobby. You’re not on Medicare yet so you just don’t care? Is that it? Or is just fun to talk about how all of us Republican men hate women? The whole idea of a third party payer system needs to go away. That way you can buy what ever insurance you want. But hey, if that happened there wouldn’t be a fake war on women to talk about.

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        True. If you want to get really technical, the controversy started when employers were forced to be the health insurance providers in the first place, decades ago. The practice of tying employment to health insurance has proven disastrous, at best.

      • Scarlet Hawk says:

        I haven’t said the GOP is waging a holy war on women. I don’t believe there is a war on women or anyone else. Those are your words, not mine. I also don’t think Republicans hate women. You don’t know me, but if you did you know I don’t play the victim and I really am not a fan of peeps who do.

        Also, if it wasn’t obvious, I write with a lot of Republicans on this blog who I would assert like me and I adore them. Republicans are great people. I think the minority of folks who are trumpeting this as a victory are missing the larger implications of what this will mean in 2016.

        • TheEiger says:

          We are all relatively smart people here. You don’t have to say “War on Women” for us to get your point. You also didn’t address a single point I made about Medicare. Why not? If we are going to have discussion on what should and shouldn’t be covered why can’t we talk about Obama’s war on the elderly. I don’t care who you vote for, but when you are misunderstanding the court ruling and the difference in the ACA and HHS rulings you are making it very hard to believe you know what you are talking about. You are spreading misinformation and it’s bad fore everyone. This is the same misinformation that has your “TON of girlfriends” all pissed off.

          • Scarlet Hawk says:

            But I’m afraid that’s my point that somehow keeps getting missed in this post: I don’t believe there is a war on women; all I’m saying is that when moderate Republicans allow the socially conservative minority to trumpet this as a “win” they will lose those requisite votes for elections. And at the end of the day, peeps can be as party purist as they like, but if you don’t occupy office, you don’t have the power to change law.

            As for your questions about Medicare, I can’t speak to Medicare b/c frankly I’m too young to be affected by it nor be able to speak knowledgeably about it. However, I can say that I have personally benefited from the ACA in a number of ways and support some of it’s attributes; not all. I have heard of what you’re saying about these sort of death panels and whatnot and would counter that my insurance company regularly denied me coverage for a variety of things my Dr. deemed necessary as a result of my Type 1 diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. These were problems that existed before the ACA, and obviously have not been solved since it’s implementation.

            • TheEiger says:

              This is just all kinds of sad. You want to talk about big issues that are important and then use the I’m too young to know card when you can’t win an argument. The problem I have with your entire line reasoning is that you have started from a position that is wrong in the first place. Now you are leading everyone astray with your misinformation. You have your facts wrong. Just because don’t understand the facts or don’t like something doesn’t make you right. Also, talking about facts… single women aren’t the largest voting bloc. The largest voting bloc are the people that are on Social Security and Medicare. But hey, we live in the blog world where we can just make stuff up.

              • John Konop says:

                In all due respect you are living in a echo chamber of news……This like other issues are changing……Like it or not….voices like your will be why Hillary will be the next president….with coat tails…..You are making Bill and Hillary very happy!

                • TheEiger says:

                  In all due respect John, I have an issue when people either lie or spread misinformation about very important large problems we face as a nation. If you think Hillary will win because I called someone out on a blog for having their facts wrong well then so be it. I would like to have a discussion about why third party insurance is wrong, but when you start off with facts that are wrong it’s hard to have those conversations.

                  I believe the one of the main reasons conservatives have an issue wining national elections is we continue to allow liberals to say what ever the hell they want and get away with it. For too long we have believed that just passing good legislation will be enough. We thought that the people will see what good we do. But when you have people that flat out lie and spread misinformation about what we are doing it hard to win. So, with that said. I will do my part is showing people where they are wrong on the facts. Okay? Okay.

                  • seenbetrdayz says:

                    “I believe the one of the main reasons conservatives have an issue wining national elections is we continue to allow liberals to say what ever the hell they want and get away with it.”


                  • John Konop says:

                    In all due respect would you consider Goldwater, Reagan and Wiliam F Buckley conservative since they do not agree with you on all socially consrvative issues? How did I lie?

                    • TheEiger says:

                      I could care less where Goldwater or Reagan stand on this issue. I can think for myself John. Also, you are smart enough to know that my lies and misinformation statement was directed at Scarlet’s complete misunderstanding of the court ruling and her fake war on women.

              • georgiahack says:

                Maybe Scarlett doesn’t know enough about Medicare to make an informed point. She would rather stick to stuff she does know.

                Some people don’t like talking out of the asses. Go figure.

                • Scarlet Hawk says:

                  Thanks, Georgiahack. That would be EXACTLY why I wouldn’t speak about it- if I am not informed, then I may ask questions, but not make assertions.

                  Many thanks for recognizing this and thanks also for taking the time to read my post. 🙂

                  • TheEiger says:

                    You don’t know how one of the largest insurance programs in USA works, but know for a fact that Hobby Lobby is wrong for filing their lawsuit dealing with health insurance? Listen I’m pretty sure we are very close to the same age. Age has nothing to do with this conversation. But I’m just making assertions?

                    • georgiahack says:

                      You don’t comprehend very well Eiger. Where did she say Hobby Lobby was wrong for filing their lawsuit? She was talking about folks like you crowing over a win that is not gonna be a win in the long term and the effects it will have on the GOP brand going into the election cycle.

                      Also, Medicare is one of the biggest and most complicated issues out there. If it wasn’t then you wouldn’t have had idiots out there with signs that read “Keep you Gov’t hands off my medicare.” I think most people only have cursory understanding, let alone be able to talk about it with authority.

                    • TheEiger says:

                      @ Georgiahack. “I’m so glad to hear that the company for which I work can determine the best method of birth control for me. I definitely value a corporation more than my OB GYN, and obviously the SCTOUS values the religious beliefs of a business owner over the individual person.” – Scarlet.

                      Court rulings are complicated things as well.

                    • georgiahack says:

                      Disagreeing with an outcome is not the same as saying they should not have filed the suit. Court cases are complicated.

  9. Lwood says:

    Scarlet Hawk you sound like a female relative of mine who is an attorney. She is a Democrat but a Venn diagram of y’alls ideas would definitely have an intersection at “Things Important to Women”

    • Scarlet Hawk says:

      Yep. And that’s kind of the point- many women converge on this point. Not all, but a lot. Women of different ages, races, religions, and political parties :). It’s a hot button issue.

      • Dr. Monica Henson says:

        That is exactly the point. This issue is of great importance to many women, and of paramount importance to voting women, regardless of their party affiliation. The polls will tell the story and prove Miss Scarlet Hawk to be absolutely correct in her prediction.

  10. northside101 says:

    Amen to the Elger!!!

    Unfortunately from reading a lot of the viewpoints here, I get the idea that “anything goes” when it comes to behavior, and “government ought to pay for it” are becoming the norms of society, or at least large parts of this country. We’ve certainly seen that with abortion, a practice which was universally condemned by the ancient Church fathers (the undivided Church before the split between the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox about a thousand years ago) but now is seen as a “choice” even though the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with so-called “hard cases” like rape and life of the mother.

    Entertaining to see Nancy Pelosi rail against the decision. Wasn’t she the one who said, “we have to pass the bill in order to know what it is in it?”

    But one thing both sides can probably agree on—the ruling yesterday will create more employment for lawyers for years to come

    • Will Durant says:

      Our laws are not based on ancient church law and deliberately so by the founders. Ancient church law forbade lending money and charging interest as well.

  11. seenbetrdayz says:

    The average cost of a mammogram is about $100, out-of-pocket if you don’t have insurance. Mammograms are medically necessary, or at the very least, medically relevant (and yes I agree that it is incredibly awkward that not all insurance companies see it as such). You say an IUD, out of pocket, cost you about $1,600. IUD’s are not medically necessary, and no where near medically relevant (unless you could argue that you would die if you can’t have sex, and as a nurse, I’d be very interested to learn about such a condition).

    So, while you’re fighting your insurance company to get them to pay for an IUD, 16 of your fellow females are fighting to get them to cover a mammogram. Since you won’t bother to try to understand any of my analogies, let me just point out here that:

    16 females were potentially denied a mammogram so you could have sex. $100 x 16 = $1600


    Sixteen (16) females were fighting for needed mammograms while you wanted to have sex.

    No amount of crying about a fictitious ‘war on women’ is going to mask the selfishness you are displaying.

      • John Konop says:

        Very good point seems rather hypocritical…..You cannot take the pill, IUD….. but vasectomy ok? I would love to hear the logic….

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        I’m all for ending that as well. The guy with prostate cancer takes priority over the guy who just wants to keep having sex but wants someone to pay for his vasectomy. Just like the woman who needs breast cancer screening takes priority over the girl who wants an IUD. Needs versus wants should apply to men as well.

        I have nothing against sex, but it is not something you need so badly that your ‘rights have been infringed’ if your employer doesn’t provide you contraception. If that’s the case, my rights have been violated for way too long.

        • George Chidi says:

          “Needs versus wants should apply to men as well.”

          Only, they don’t.

          And there are no Supreme Court cases demanding an end to coverage for Viagra and vasectomies, no throngs of religious people standing outside of buildings waving placards with severed vas deferens and photographs of blue pills, no stacks of letters and op/ed pieces and pamphlets and studies and books demanding an end to the practice.

          It’s not enough just to say, well, yes. This is hypocritical. It’s fundamentally unjust, and completely undercuts the argument that covering an IUD is unacceptable.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            Because (most) people generally don’t care what a private business owner does with his own business enough to file SCOTUS cases, or run a picket line. If they do care and don’t like what they see, they stop doing business there. Other women have replied that they won’t be doing business at Hobby Lobby anymore, and they seem to understand the simplicity of the concept.

            Maybe it’s hypocritical, but unjust? You’re abusing the meaning of the word. The owners of Hobby Lobby aren’t running a government courtroom that has to decide what is fair, or just. They’re running a private business, and they have rights as owners of private property, and I’m sure they’d much rather not be forced to be involved in healthcare at all.

            Hobby Lobby insurance covers sterilization. IUDs are not sterilization. Vasectomies and tubal ligations are considered sterilizations, they’re both ‘permanent’, and they’re both covered. That’s about as equal as you’re gonna get, and I don’t know what more you’d expect. That in itself is probably more than they should bother with (still more of a ‘want’ issue). Take it and say thank you.

    • beenthere says:

      First, “IUDs are not medically necessary”…. Har, that’s a good one! They’re actually an incredibly common non-surgical treatment for uterine fibroids and endometriosis. You should really take a second and brush up on your medical school textbooks, Dr. Seenbetrdayz. Wait you’re not a doctor, you say? Shocking.

      Second, your argument – that women obtaining prescription medicine/devices which can be used to prevent pregnancy and also a variety of other reasons is 100% optional, and not NEEDED – when carried to its logical conclusion means that women of childbearing age should just stop having sex, like ever. The entire male membership of the College Republicans would like to speak with you in the back.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      I’m pretty sure I was referring to IUD’s used for sex purposes. You know you can even use pills to help prevent certain non-sexual issues as well? So nice try, but no, having to go without a certain form of birth control is not going to end you life if you can’t have sex.

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        But maybe I should have made that clearer. I just assumed that with 60+ posts after an FPP where a woman talks about sex with her boyfriends, it would not have led you to jump in with off-label uses for IUDs.

        • beenthere says:

          Treatment of endometriosis and UF with an IUD are not off label uses, but I digress.

          We can argue about whether 16/20 options offered by HL is sufficient. We can argue about what IUDs are used for, whether they’re in fact actually abortifacient, whether women who, and I quote “talk about sex with… boyfriends” are abusing their employers’ gracious offers of health insurance by engaging in NON NECESSARY SEXYTIMES with birth control in the first place, horrors! But Scarlet’s original point still stands: Asserting that the religious freedom of a corporation’s private owners trumps the medical needs of (in this case) a female patient as determined by that person’s physician will only read one way to the VAST majority of women, especially single women.

          You won’t believe me when I tell you that it doesn’t make me any happier than you, seenbetrdayz, but you might as well get used to Madam President, as another poster noted.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            I’m certain if Hillary wins it will have more to do with the GOP recycling an old Romney/McCain MORE WAR! Ticket, than it will have to do with Hobby Lobby policies.
            (which is kind of sad, because Hillary is just as pro-war as whatever the GOP will regurgitate).

            As another poster said, some of us aren’t willing to compromise our small government principles so we can buy votes. But if it is really that important, go vote democrat.

            Just remember, ‘the government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.’

            • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

              “‘the government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.’”

              …Well stated.

              • seenbetrdayz says:

                Thanks but it wasn’t mine. It’s one of those old sayings that no one listens to which ultimately leads to their own demise.

  12. TheEiger says:

    Let’s take a look at something that is really news worthy and honestly worth talking about.

    Here is a list of what Medicare does not cover. Here is a quote from Medicare. gov “Medicare doesn’t cover everything. If you need certain services that Medicare doesn’t cover, you’ll have to pay for them yourself unless you have other insurance or you’re in a Medicare health plan that covers these services.”

    So elderly people can’t get dentures, long term care, eye exams or hearing aides but you should get your free Plan B? If you want it buy it yourself. My great aunt has a hearing issue that Medicare won’t help with and can’t get a new set of dentures because Medicare won’t pay for it. That’s a real issue. Not this fake war on women you are talking about.

    • Scarlet Hawk says:

      Your attempt at changing the topicality of my post is really lovely. Unfortunately, that’s a debate tactic that has never been terribly effective. My post, my topic. You are welcome to write for your own blog group and invite me to comment on your posts- I’d be happy to do that.

      However, I do like it when I’m not alone. Kyle Wingfield wrote about this very same thing in his column. Check it out.

      • TheEiger says:

        Just because you don’t want to talk about something doesn’t mean it’s changing the topic. You are talking about who pays for your contraception. I’m talking about who pays for my great Aunts hearing aides and dentures. Why is this off topic?

        The solution to this is to get away from all third party insurance then you can buy what ever you want without saying it’s someone else fought why you can’t have something you want. My aunt could then take her Medicare premium support check to an insurance provider that would help her get hearing aides. Your employer could do the same for you.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            Tubal ligation is about as close as you’ll get to the equivalent of a vasectomy if you put anatomical gender differences aside. Hobby Lobby covers both.

          • TheEiger says:

            Show me where the ACA mandates male contraception or where a HHS ruling mandates it. Please John. I’ll help you. It doesn’t.

                  • TheEiger says:

                    Why will Medicare not pay for my aunts dentures and hearing aides? Is that fare? If you don’t like what a private company does (hobby lobby) don’t shop there. I’m talking about the federal government mandating things they have no right to mandate. I’m sorry reading comprehension is so hard for you.

                  • TheEiger says:

                    Also, do you like to argue for arguments sake? Earlier you were agreeing with me when I said third party insurance was the problem.

                    • John Konop says:

                      I agree it is an issue…….but under the current situation it is bias against women….I am 100 percent against afirmative action…..but 100 percent for equal opportunity……

                  • seenbetrdayz says:

                    I think we have a fundamental breakdown in communication as far as what makes a right a ‘right.’

                    Amendment #1, says, my right to free speech shall not be infringed. It says it in more words, of course, but it’s there, plain as day, in black and white.

                    Now, does that mean that my employer has to buy me a microphone and a speaker set? Does that mean that Charlie has to let any of us post on Peach Pundit? Does it mean that anyone has to listen to me? (most probably don’t), because what good is the right to speak if I don’t have the right to be heard?

                    Has anyone ‘taken away my right’ if they deny me use of their time, effort, or property? Or could I still go speak somewhere else, maybe say, on my own property? Could I buy my own microphone? Could I start my own website?

                    Or does the first amendment simply mean that the *government* cannot infringe upon that right?

                    In other words:

                    I don’t have to let you come over to my house and stand in my yard and give speeches. You don’t have to let me come over to your house and stand in your yard and give speeches. And when government steps in and tells all of us to shut up, we all gang up on government because it has no business telling any of us what we cannot say. THAT is what equal protection of rights means.

                    The Constitution was written to prevent government from infringing upon our rights. It was not written to give you, or me, the right to go onto someone else’s property and demand to run their show, much less force them with laws and regulations to be complicit in fulfilling our demands. That is not exercising a right, that is unabashed bullying.

                    • John Konop says:

                      Not that simple…..we know young single mothers 75 percent of the time end up on welfare….which people who pay taxes like me end up with the bill…..I guess I am just more fiscally conservative than you.

                    • seenbetrdayz says:

                      It IS that simple. Just because I have a right to something does not mean YOU have to pay for it.

                      If you disagree, buy me a gun, John. I have the right to bear arms. Don’t deny me of my right by refusing to buy me a gun!

                      (actually don’t buy me a gun, straw purchases are illegal unless your name is Eric Holder).


                      You wouldn’t buy me a microphone, even though the first amendment says I have a right to free speech.

                      You wouldn’t buy me a gun, even though the second amendment says I have a right to bear arms.

                      But lo and behold, we must buy contraception because people have a right to have sex, which I’m sure was gonna make it into the Bill of Rights but maybe the founders just ran out of space.

                  • seenbetrdayz says:

                    And again, I think you’re missing it:

                    Vasectomies are like tubal ligations, except for men. Hobby Lobby covers both surgeries, for both sexes. That’s pretty gosh darn equal, but not equal enough, apparently. I guess some people want the woman to have an incredibly thorough sex change operation so she can then have a vasectomy, and then be absolutely sure that she’s getting the same exact treatment as the guy. Gender equality, for the win!

                    (Again, what more do you expect?)

                    • John Konop says:

                      ……..It IS that simple. Just because I have a right to something does not mean YOU have to pay for it…..

                      In reality we are paying for it 75% of the time if you are a young single mother. In society if your rights effect my pocket book I should have right to say and or do something. I guess I am the fiscally conservative one….

                    • John Konop says:

                      …Vasectomies are like tubal ligations, except for men. Hobby Lobby covers both surgeries, for both sexes.Vasectomies are like tubal ligations, except for men. Hobby Lobby covers both surgeries, for both sexes……

                      Your logic is for religious reason you can only have surgical contraception? HUH?

                    • seenbetrdayz says:

                      I’m sure Hobby Lobby would rather not offer anything. But so long as they are forced by government (and in part, YOU, John) to do so, they believe should at least not have to pay for certain devices that they believe can cause abortions.

                      Offering vasectomies and tubal ligations are perhaps lesser sins, via mandates forced upon them by your beloved government. I think you need to take a long hard look at who the real aggressor is.

                      Other than vasectomies, did I mention that the only other option for men is a condom (aside from abstinence, or ending coitus early)? Hobby Lobby offers 16 of 20 contraceptive options for women.

                      It’s not fair! It’s not fair! wwaaaaaah.

                    • John Konop says:

                      …….believe should at least not have to pay for certain devices that they believe can cause abortions……

                      Help me understand how an IUD…causes an abortion? How is a vasectomy any different via the abortion issue than an IUD…other than an operation…..? I am lost….

                      I noticed you have avoided the fiscal issue….

                    • seenbetrdayz says:

                      Kind of hard to have an abortion if you’re sterile. One kind of . . . preempts the other.

                      Okay, fiscal issue:

                      Stage equipment is expensive. Buy me a stage and sound set so I can exercise my right to free speech. If you don’t, you’ll be infringing my right to free speech, and I’ll tell government to force you to buy my stuff.

                      That is the *exact* same way people who think government should force Hobby Lobby to buy contraception are acting.

                    • seenbetrdayz says:

                      Would it change your mind if it wasn’t? Face it, John. You’d rather force these business owners to have no options at all, and just give everyone whatever the hell they want. —That’s what you don’t get. Government is force. How about we go back to advocating separation of employers and insurance so you don’t have to worry about what hypocritical measures people are forced to take?

                      You are being deliberately dense on the issue.

  13. Lea Thrace says:

    I love how some of the arguments for this ruling have devolved into “you want to have sex whenever you want with no consequences…”

    That is really really helping bring women to your side of the argument. Slut shaming ALWAYS works.


    • beenthere says:

      Wait wait, I thought it was MEN who want to have sex whenver they want with no consequences, and women are lying schemers who just want to bulldoze guys into marriage and keep them from having fun by tying them down with a baby? Pick a trope and stick with it, dudes! Are we supposed to be manipulators who just want to get pregnant and force a man to marry us or are we whores running about town with our free gubmint IUDs?

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      The shame comes from wanting other people to pay up so you can have sex. I’m not demeaning the act of sex itself, but I can find ways to buy my own contraception. Why can’t other people do the same?

      It does strike me as hypocritical, though, when someone talks about pap spears and mammograms and then complains that the IUD they wanted (so they could have sex) wasn’t covered at first. $1600 would cover 16 mammograms. And yet, I’m some sort of misogynist, when it seems clear to me that the worst enemy of women who need mammograms are other women who want IUDs.

      • Lea Thrace says:

        Just going to mention that quite a few different forms of “BC” are not just for BC purposes. They are actually used to treat other medical conditions QUITE often. This includes the pill, IUDs, patches, and shots. There are women who NEED these medical interventions.

        But that’s okay. You are certain that deep down its cause we all want to go whoring around and that’s all that matters.

      • Stefan says:

        I bet there are all types of ways to achieve the goals of contraception, from birth control to being generally offputting. The glasses I wore in high school could probably qualify as well.

        Having said all that, this isn’t forcing people to take birth control. It is simply including it in the vast array of medical options available to people with insurance. More specifically, it is mandating that the benefits exchanged by an individual with a company for employment include health insurance coverage. In the same way those benefits include unemployment insurance, payments for social security and medicare, and various other required inclusions. This should not be treated so differently.

        • TheEiger says:

          So women that work at Hobby Lobby can choose from 16 out of 20 contraceptives and that’s not fair, but my great aunt has paid into Medicare her whole life and can’t get hearing aides or dentures? Why does the federal government not help the quality of life for the elderly by paying for these things? The President could use his pen and phone to do this like he has threatened with other things. But why hasn’t he? Because he wants to continue this BS war on women. 16 out of 20 options for contraceptives. O options for dentures or hearing aides if you are on Medicare. Let’s have a real discussion about what is fair. Instead of what someone wants their employer to pay for.

          • John Konop says:

            In all due respect at times I agree we have perversion of priorities on medicine/procedures covered…. ie Viagra over a hearing aide for example…..But birth control saves money…..especially among low income population… you know young pregnant women end up on welfare 75% of the time. You are correct we need a real conversation about coverage…And it should be driven by priorities over elective…..

            • TheEiger says:

              Yes birth control can save money in the long run and women at Hobby Lobby have 16 out of 20 choices. My aunt has Zero. O. Not 1 out 20 or 16 out of 20 choices. She has zero. And instead of talking about that. We are talking about a fake war on women.

  14. greencracker says:

    I’m enough of a scholar to know the Constitution only refers to men, but imagine if it applied to the ladies too, what with its guarantee of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Being able to do stuff like space children, not have children, have sex and skip periods bring a lot of liberty and happiness to a lot of ladies. Too bad it’s not guaranteed.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      Are you serious? I might be a guy, but I can do stuff like space children, not have children, have sex, and skip . . . well. But as far as kids go, you’re not being denied the ability to not have kids. There are plenty of ways to go about that which don’t require someone else buying birth control for you.

      In our screwed up progressive mentality world, having someone refuse to buy you something = being denied the right to access it.

      The bank won’t buy me a home, therefore: I guess I’m being denied the right to home ownership.
      Dear Government, please pass a law . . .

      And you all wonder how I could mistake Scarlet for someone with an entitlement complex.

      • Stefan says:

        Her point, it seems to me, is that the actions, and more importantly, the reactions of conservatives about the Hobby Lobby and similar decisions, drive single women voters to the Democrats. She used her own experience as a way of explaining why that occurs, and you vilify her for having and sharing that experience. In so doing, you are demonstrating the point she was trying to make, so kudos for that.

        However, your analogies (to home ownership, gun ownership, theatre tech, etc) aren’t relevant to the Hobby Lobby decision. Hobby Lobby was an incorrect overreach because it confuses the personhood of corporations for purposes of the law (for taxation, legal standing, financial transactions) with the personhood of reality (thoughts about self, religion, etc). That said, when the administration exempted non-profits, it seriously weakened its legal argument in this case. Consitutional protections should apply to corporations – they do have rights. But their rights should only be in the sphere in which they exist. They own property, so they have 5th amendment rights against taking, 4th amendment rights for due process, etc. But they shouldn’t have rights that are human in nature. They shouldn’t have the right to worship as they please. They shouldn’t have the right against self-incrimination. However, we’ve never really known how to treat corporations, and the closest analogy is to individual people, so rather than excluding them from all the responsibilities of individuals, we gave them both the rights and responsibilities of them.

        All that and a liability shield, too.

        • seenbetrdayz says:

          So what’s the solution? What should conservatives do, who believe in private property rights and find that simply because you own a company, your money should not be used for things you find objectionable?

          a) we close up shop. Rather than open ourselves to the risk of being complicit in things we don’t like, we pack our companies up and no one gets any jobs, insurance, or goods. We’d be like the doctors who retired early as soon as Obamacare came down the pipes. That sounds like a loss for everyone involved.
          b) we give in on our principles. But in doing so, by offering the same platform as democrats, we now have neither party which believes in the principle of private property in the business sector. Would it not be simpler in that case to vote democrat rather than act as such, yet go by a different name? (admittedly, the GOP leadership is pretty good at doing that, though)

          I fear that there is a greater threat to liberty when you draw lines between private property in the personal sector and private property in the business sector. Most liberals seem to largely believe that once you open a business, your business somehow becomes shared property to the world. Conservatives tend to believe that your business is as much your personal property as the home you live in. I wouldn’t use my home to open an abortion clinic, and I wouldn’t want my business to be compelled to play a role (large or small) in that practice, either.

          On the liability issue, I’d be completely in favor of doing away with those corporate protections. In that case, we are actually exempting corporations from the liability which would exist as an individual, which is protectionist. I’d also do away with the special tax breaks you can get once you incorporate, which aren’t available to mom-and-pop stores. But that is perhaps a separate topic.

          In Hobby Lobby’s case, they are not getting any more protection than they would have if they were running a household instead of a business.

          I see what the problem is, though. We are not in agreement on what rights a business owner has. We are trying to have a discussion on the best-tasting fruit: rocks or umbrellas. There’s not likely to be a way we will ever meet in the middle.

          So it brings us back to square one:

          Either we give in and offer the same stance as democrats on the issue, which we know conflicts with our principles, or we start shutting down our businesses, citing undue regulation which stifles freedom. —On top of those rather crappy choices, we have some women who threaten that if we don’t change our stance, they’ll vote for Hillary. But honestly, it sounds like they’d be happier with Hillary anyway, so it’s sort of like being blackmailed, when you know the person making demands is just gonna do what she wants anyway.

          I see it as a no-win for conservatives regardless of the outcome, and in those cases, you might as well stand for what you believe is right, even if it costs you votes at the ballot box.

          • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

            “you might as well stand for what you believe is right, even if it costs you votes at the ballot box”


  15. gt7348b says:

    Scarlet – I usually reserve my comments for transportation issues upon which I’m a professional. However, I don’t think there’s a better example of the point I think you are trying to make that it isn’t the decision itself, but the reaction that will cost the Republicans in the maybe not so long term than this comment section. I may be a man in the weird transition between Gen X and Millenials, but I know that my sister, cousins, and colleagues are very protective and aware of the expense of health insurance just by being a woman – no matter whether it is employer based or not. To those of you who agree with this decision, remember, you don’t win elections by not recognizing the importance of issues for those you want to court, even those you don’t understand. If you don’t realize this – then maybe you’ll be happy with a Madame President Clinton or Mr. President Biden swearing in the replacements for Justices Thomas and Kennedy. If you don’t, you’re playing checkers in a game of chess as Scarlet so wonderfully titled this thread.

    Scarlet’s point to my mind is not about whether she wants entitlements or birth control, its about how you portray yourself to the electorate and the consequences of your words and actions towards that electorate that may drive away one who would normally vote with you.

    If it was really about the SOCTUS decision, then why does this thread have over 100+ responses and the other one 3?

  16. Ghost of William F. Buckley says:

    So many great opinions and thoughts presented cogently, in a generally respectful manner – Always a pleasure to drop in to PP to gain perspective on important issues, with a political bent.

    One comment that resonates with me, UGA2000: “My concerns with this decision have far less to do with the specifics of the case than they do with the precedent that SCOTUS has set.”

    Couple this decision with the Citizens United precedent and I fear we lose sight of the scarier point, “Corporations are PEOPLE.’ Folks, we lose when we fail to recognize that potentially profound negative outcomes will occur if we equalize human rights to corporate ‘rights.’

    Corporations ARE NOT people, yet THAT precedent is already set through Citizens United.

    So, to Ms. Hawks’ point as to how this decision may compel female voters:

    – Dems will point to this as another reason why women should vote Dem; those so inclined may do so, many will not. Another peccadillo for the GOP; another example of “Tentshrink,” deserved or not.

    The key takeaway is how easily we acquiesce to losing our choices to corporate masters by the insidious razor of legal precedent. With Citizens United, political choice is influenced by unlimited money.

    Birth decisions may also be influenced by corporate control of medical reimbursement. If that is not about the most basic of choices, than what is?

    “The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.” – Thomas Jefferson

Comments are closed.