Skip to main content

View Diary: Hobby Lobby: Does RFRA violate the Establishment Clause? (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hobby Lobby claims that they (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, chuckvw, Teiresias70, Nisi Prius

    don't want to pay for insurance that covers contraceptive drugs. Given that many of these drugs are prescribed fairly frequently for non-contraceptive gynecological reasons, how can they actually make the argument, not knowing for what reason the drugs are actually prescribed for? Wouldn't this be the same as not wanting to pay for insurance that covers antibiotics because they might be used for treating venereal diseases?

    Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

    by milkbone on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 12:33:18 PM PDT

    •  I'm not sure what they want (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If they objected only to drugs used exclusively for contraception, would they then be able to win?

      Potentially, they draft a contract with their insurer to only pay claims for those drugs if being used for non-contraceptive purposes.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site