Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumPic Of The Moment: Unfortunately For Women...

Hobby Lobby Still Covers Vasectomies And Viagra - HuffPo
Follow @demunderground

lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Fucking boners.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)underpants
(195,552 posts)Clarence Thomas
Auggie
(32,982 posts)pamela
(3,480 posts)Gift cards to the Heart-Attack Grill.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)Unless youre married and using it for your wife, using Viagra is having lust for others and thus committing adultery in your heart...
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Matthew 5:28
lark
(25,959 posts)They use China as a major vendor and China has a state policy of forced abortion if the couple has one living child. Idiot so-called Christians are really just anti-woman and pro-profit, regardless of the cost, even to their faith and ideas.
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)somethingshiny
(74 posts)that no one is questioning how HL is even able to do this logistically, ethics aside. I guess I'm just surprised that an insurance provider would allow a client to dictate the minute details of a policy.
Everyone acts as if Hobby Lobby is a health insurance company itself, referring to what "they" will or will not cover. HL negotiates a contract with, say, United Health Care. The rep. from HL states what kind of policy they'd like to offer their employees. They want one that covers, say, pregnancies, reconstructive surgeries, in-home rehabilitative care, etc., and birth control. But not every kind of birth control - just drugs A,B,C, or D. If an employee visits her doctor and is prescribed drugs E or F for birth control. we at H.L. do not want United to cover the cost of those drugs.
I just don't get why United, or any other insurance co., would allow H.L. to carve up a policy and pick and choose the parts they like. And another question no one seems to be asking: did H.L., by convincing their ins. provider to exclude coverage of the drugs they find offensive, get a lower rate? If I own a company with 100 employees and I offer health ins., can I negotiate with the provider about which specific drugs I'd like their policies to cover?
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)they'd like their policies to cover. And welcome to DU.
geardaddy
(25,392 posts)littlemissmartypants
(32,802 posts)littlemissmartypants
(32,802 posts)Like this *holds up two fingers* still doesn't help. All of it needs to get the fu*k out of my vagina.
There are going to be surprising repercussions from this. Just ask my buddy Ruth. The "veil" has been pierced. There's no going back.
Love, Peace and Shelter. littlemissmartypants
TBF
(35,977 posts)I am LIVID.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)calimary
(89,294 posts)Why does that get through and contraception doesn't?
WHY? And why can't we start getting active about that?
Um... handy updated TOLL FREE Capitol Hill Switchboard numbers located in my sig line below, for your convenience...
mnhtnbb
(33,214 posts)albino65
(484 posts)Initech
(107,963 posts)Got to keep making those babies!
arcane1
(38,613 posts)SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)their employer covered healthcare it's okay. But if a woman wants to use birthcontrol, it offends their religious convictions? Anyone who votes Rethuglican is loony.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,584 posts)Thanks EarlG
Biblically diabolical.
If this doesn't get the women out to the polls in every election from this point forward, nothing will. There's allot of men that don't like this decision any better than women. I feel a serious backlash coming on.
tclambert
(11,187 posts)Corporate personhood wins again.
MADem
(135,425 posts)libodem
(19,288 posts). [img]
[/img]
Cha
(317,702 posts)xfundy
(5,105 posts)We've got Scalia law. Yeeehawww!
ancianita
(43,162 posts)tclambert
(11,187 posts)The dumbass Roberts court says the law cannot make a religious corporation pay for contraception. But the law can make the religious corporation pay taxes. And it's perfectly all right for the government to pay for contraception with those tax dollars.
Chief Justice Roberts, do you get how that doesn't make a damn bit of sense?
Worst Supreme Court ever.
merrily
(45,251 posts)damn them.
riversedge
(80,030 posts)Gothmog
(176,689 posts)Lrobby99
(33 posts)The proper caption for Justice Thomas would be an empty bubble above his loathsome head.
