Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lmfao at both sides complaining about BC as the main issue. No, the main issue is this......
Congrats my fellow Americans, we officially have said that non living entity can have religious beliefs
No. What 5 of 9 SCOTUS justices agreed to is that the government cannot compel a private entity to do something it does not wish to do. That is the real "bottom line" of the decision.
Hobby Lobby is not trying to ban anything.
Hobby Lobby is not violating anyone's natural individual rights.
Hobby Lobby is not intruding on anyone's privacy.
The entire case revolves around Hobby Lobby arguing that they should not be compelled by government force to violate their own rights protected by the 1st Amendment. I am appalled that it wasn't 9-0, since it is so fundamentally obvious that the abortifacient mandate created by the Sebilius bureaucracy is a gross violation of the 1st Amendment. But the Supreme Court has been good at appalling me for like 30 years now.
No. What 5 of 9 SCOTUS justices agreed to is that the government cannot compel a private entity to do something it does not wish to do. That is the real "bottom line" of the decision.
Hobby Lobby is not trying to ban anything.
Hobby Lobby is not violating anyone's natural individual rights.
Hobby Lobby is not intruding on anyone's privacy.
The entire case revolves around Hobby Lobby arguing that they should not be compelled by government force to violate their own rights protected by the 1st Amendment. I am appalled that it wasn't 9-0, since it is so fundamentally obvious that the abortifacient mandate created by the Sebilius bureaucracy is a gross violation of the 1st Amendment. But the Supreme Court has been good at appalling me for like 30 years now.
The liberals will never "get over" this. They propagandize, lie about it, misconstrue the meaning of it (on purpose, for political purposes) and will not shut up about it, no matter how wrong they are (and they are very wrong). Their ignorance and stupidity are amplified by their ridiculous statements, which reflects badly on their political Party and their 'cause' (whatever it is).
This is what I'm talking about. You admit he lied but then you go with the administrations talking points to try and defend the lie.
Just because a 60 year old does not have birth control as a part of their policy does not make it sub standard. There is no benefit for the 60 year old in a more comprehensive policy that covers birth control.
IIRC, I only used said talking points to point out the reasoning the White House gave in dropping their push for the end-of-life provision in ACA. Also, I didn't defend the lie; rather, I used non-partisan sources supporting my expectation of the net benefit of these replacement policies. I agree that the promise should never have been made, but I attribute it more to idealistic expectations on the part of Obama, rather than intentional deception.
Within the framework of your example, I agree with your statement. I don't deny that ACA may not be beneficial for everyone at the moment. However, whether these policy replacements will help or hinder citizens, in the aggregate, remains to be seen. Nevertheless, The Commonwealth Fund and CMS appear to anticipate the former.
No. What 5 of 9 SCOTUS justices agreed to is that the government cannot compel a private entity to do something it does not wish to do. That is the real "bottom line" of the decision.
Hobby Lobby is not trying to ban anything.
Hobby Lobby is not violating anyone's natural individual rights.
Hobby Lobby is not intruding on anyone's privacy.
The entire case revolves around Hobby Lobby arguing that they should not be compelled by government force to violate their own rights protected by the 1st Amendment. I am appalled that it wasn't 9-0, since it is so fundamentally obvious that the abortifacient mandate created by the Sebilius bureaucracy is a gross violation of the 1st Amendment. But the Supreme Court has been good at appalling me for like 30 years now.
Not to be overly picky, but the majority didn't rule based on the 1st Amendment. The decision relied exclusively on the RFRA.
Your 1st sentence, your 'bottom line,' is so off the mark I'll chalk it up to your exuberance about the decision.
Not to be overly picky, but the majority didn't rule based on the 1st Amendment. The decision relied exclusively on the RFRA.
Your 1st sentence, your 'bottom line,' is so off the mark I'll chalk it up to your exuberance about the decision.
How is it off the mark? The decision says that the government cannot compel a closely held private company to violate their religious freedom if there is a less restrictive way to further the particular government interest at stake. In other words, the government cannot compel a company to do that which it does not wish to do.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was aimed at laws that substantially burden the freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof, which you'll find in the 1st Amendment.
Therefore, nothing I wrote was off the mark.
The Sebelius HHS bureaucracy had decided to force employers to fund abortion and abortifacient drugs. This was a substantial burden on the freedom of religion protected by the RFRA and the 1st Amendment that gives the RFRA its teeth. Two different companies refused to willingly submit to being compelled to violate their freedom of religion. They won, and the government lost.
This still does not mean that the decision banned anything, made anything other than one specific form of government oppression illegal, or interfered in any way with anything relating to an individual's personal privacy rights. No woman in the US lost any of her natural individual rights as a result of this decision. Freedom increased, oppression decreased. Granted, very infinitesimally, but even one micrometer of movement towards freedom is a good thing.
But nice try and being pedantic in order to deflect. :thumbs:
Unfortunately, I can't say that I'm surprised. While the owners of Hobby Lobby may have been sincere, albeit misguided, in their objection to certain contraceptives being covered on religious grounds, SCOTUS's decision has the potential to significantly boost business owners' influence over their employees' ACA policies.
I agree--this is a troubling decision not only because of its impact on women's medical care, but also because of the way it will unsettle vast swaths of law and invite new bureaucracy to deal with RFRA exemptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24
Are you so really deluded to believe that this is about "free stuff," which isn't "free" by any stretch unless you consider your paycheck and other compensation "free."
???
How is it that people are so obtuse as to not realize that as a result of this ruling, anything, absolutely anything, can, and doubtless will, be objected to on religious grounds.
The only silver lining is that I think this will prove to be the tipping point for a lot of voters.
Yes--I don't think my employer should get to use its "religious beliefs" to eliminate my cost-free preventive medical care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
From the U.S. Federal Drug Administration:
Plan B ---
"It works mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the womb (uterus)."
Many have criticized the FDA for not eliminating the 'or prevent implantation' from the guide. I think that info may still be on Plan B packaging labels; maybe someone who uses it can check.
I know some recent research doesn't support the 'prevents implantation' claim. Still, I have no problem with someone who thinks Plan B can destroy a fertilized egg, given the 'scientific certainty' it doesn't is relatively new.
This ruling does not rely on scientific certainty, scientific theory, or overwhelming scientific consensus. It relies on the "sincerely held religious beliefs" of a corporate entity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
Any language in the act is total garbage until it's codified. "Large" isn't quantifiable, anymore than "a lot". The facts are that based on all known data at this point it is a financial boondoggle.
There is nothing wrong with the people wanting their government to provide services like health care. If that's what they want and it's legal, more power to them. They can elect representatives who are like-minded and make it happen.
There is something terribly wrong with wanting those services and NOT wanting to pay for them or forcing individuals in violation of the constitution. In the case of the ACA, Americans were not behind the legislation, and the majority opposed it. It only survived the Supreme Court because Roberts made it clear it was a tax. Yet nothing in the implementation indicates it's funded as a tax. It's a boondoggle.
In every country that has single payer the tax rates are far more regressive. That's at least slightly fair.
There is no violation of the Constitution at issue in Hobby Lobby or the ACA. Further, its not as if employees are not paying for their health insurance. They are either paying part (or all) of the premium, or they are receiving premium payments from their employer as part of their compensation package. Hobby Lobby would be free to require their employees to pay the entire health insurance premium if they wanted to avoid paying in any way for medical care. All they would have to do is acquire a group health insurance plan for which employees would pay the premiums due.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
This only took a week, so much for the narrow ruling.
Lmfao at both sides complaining about BC as the main issue. No, the main issue is this......
Congrats my fellow Americans, we officially have said that non living entity can have religious beliefs
That is the crux of it, and not only can they have religious beliefs, but they can seek exemption from neutral, generally applicable laws based on those religious beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
No. What 5 of 9 SCOTUS justices agreed to is that the government cannot compel a private entity to do something it does not wish to do. That is the real "bottom line" of the decision.
Hobby Lobby is not trying to ban anything.
Hobby Lobby is not violating anyone's natural individual rights.
Hobby Lobby is not intruding on anyone's privacy.
The entire case revolves around Hobby Lobby arguing that they should not be compelled by government force to violate their own rights protected by the 1st Amendment. I am appalled that it wasn't 9-0, since it is so fundamentally obvious that the abortifacient mandate created by the Sebilius bureaucracy is a gross violation of the 1st Amendment. But the Supreme Court has been good at appalling me for like 30 years now.
Hobby Lobby is trying to exempt itself from the law. This case is not decided on 1st Amendment grounds. In fact, the majority makes an effort to distance this decision from the 1st Amendment by arguing that RFRA is a dramatic departure from the 1st Amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
How is it off the mark? The decision says that the government cannot compel a closely held private company to violate their religious freedom if there is a less restrictive way to further the particular government interest at stake. In other words, the government cannot compel a company to do that which it does not wish to do.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was aimed at laws that substantially burden the freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof, which you'll find in the 1st Amendment.
Therefore, nothing I wrote was off the mark.
The Sebelius HHS bureaucracy had decided to force employers to fund abortion and abortifacient drugs. This was a substantial burden on the freedom of religion protected by the RFRA and the 1st Amendment that gives the RFRA its teeth. Two different companies refused to willingly submit to being compelled to violate their freedom of religion. They won, and the government lost.
This still does not mean that the decision banned anything, made anything other than one specific form of government oppression illegal, or interfered in any way with anything relating to an individual's personal privacy rights. No woman in the US lost any of her natural individual rights as a result of this decision. Freedom increased, oppression decreased. Granted, very infinitesimally, but even one micrometer of movement towards freedom is a good thing.
But nice try and being pedantic in order to deflect. :thumbs:
The majority in this case makes significant efforts to argue that RFRA and RFLUIPA are a significant departure from the 1st Amendment. I think they do so because they could not get a majority to find that the 1st Amendment gives Hobby Lobby this kind of exemption from a neutral, generally applicable law. If Congress repealed RFRA tomorrow, Hobby Lobby would not be exempt from the ACA contraceptive requirement.
You are factually wrong about forcing employers to fund abortion and abortifacients. This is case is about group health insurance with cost-free preventive care, including 20 contraceptives. Again, this is not a 1st Amendment case, and the majority argues that RFRA is a departure from the 1st Amendment.
This case diminishes the benefit to women (and men--if you don't think that men benefit from cost-free contraceptives, then I have a bridge near Brooklyn to sell you) of the cost-free preventive care provided for in the ACA. And the "less restrictive alternative" regulation offered by the Court as the reason to provide this exemption to Hobby Lobby is called into question by the Court's emergency stay in the Wheaton case.
If Hobby Lobby is not denying birth control, why don't they allow the health insurance company to cover it?
Because Jesus.
No, see, it's actually because there are other forms of birth control that HL will cover, so even though an actual doctor might want to prescribe one that Hobby Lobby has carefully excluded in all its scientific and medical wisdom, the patient just has to suck it up, unlike all other HL employees (men and older women), and will have to pay the full cost without relying on the insurance that SHE pays for just like everybody else who HL is not singling out.
It's perfectly all right, as long as women's "consequence-free sex" is prevented!
No, see, it's actually because there are other forms of birth control that HL will cover, so even though an actual doctor might want to prescribe one that Hobby Lobby has carefully excluded in all its scientific and medical wisdom, the patient just has to suck it up, unlike all other HL employees (men and older women), and will have to pay the full cost without relying on the insurance that SHE pays for just like everybody else who HL is not singling out.
It's perfectly all right, as long as women's "consequence-free sex" is prevented!
I hope this clears it up for you.
What does "Jesus" have to do with pulling on your big girl panties like a generation of women before you and buy your own birth control if 4 of them are not offered for free? This whining is embarrassing to women who fought to be independent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
