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.
5 old men gerrymandered and tailored a decision to fit their right wing corporate agenda.
That seems to be the case vthe ruling really is very illogical. I don't usually say anything about supreme court decisions, but this one stands out for its flat lack if coherency.
No does not. This ruling is very strange and has a very illogical thought process atbits core.
The language about a sincerely held belief is meaningless and can't be ascertained, but the court repeatedly stressed throughout its decision how important that this religious objection be based on what the court divined as a sincerely held belief.
Saying that the corporation hobby lobby is a person with religious beliefs is very weird.
The narrowness of the decision shows the court knows it is opening up a problem with this ruling and they are trying to stop it by saying this ruling only applies to this one case.
Again That's very not how the court operates.
And with the court's decision the placing of birth control as a special category that can be deemed immoral by religious person like corporations but only those like hobby lobby, by specifically ruling this doesn't apply to other medical treatments is very strange and incomsistent thinking and not how the supreme court operates.
Hobby Lobby never argued they were against birth control. This is an interesting topic but it's not able to be discussed when you are unable to discuss the.actual facts of the case.
Hobby Lobby never argued they were against birth control. This is an interesting topic but it's not able to be discussed when you are unable to discuss the.actual facts of the case.
Yes, the whole case was about birth control. Or as the Supreme court wrote contraception. Look up What as contraception is. Yeah it is birth control one and the same.
The supreme even further singles out that his was about birth control, by specifically saying this religious objection that we are allowing here only only applies to birth control.
So she should be forced to have surgery instead of a very simple procedure that takes minutes? Yea that sounds reasonable... Oh, and according to her Dr, she would still have to use her BC, again so we are are clear, for a separate heath issue, so it wouldn't help in her case.
"Hey, you know that wart you have? Instead of trying to freeze it off, we are just going to take the finger!"
So she should be forced to have surgery instead of a very simple procedure that takes minutes? Yea that sounds reasonable... Oh, and according to her Dr, she would still have to use her BC, again so we are are clear, for a separate heath issue, so it wouldn't help in her case.
I'm no doctor but I'm not aware of any such procedure and condition this would be. Could you explain it to me so I can educate myself on it?
They cover 16 of 20 forms of birth control. Yet you liberals and the media still refuse to be straightforward and honest. Seems to be the issue everything you argue about something. You are rarely ever honest.
Quote:
However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.
I'm no doctor but I'm not aware of any such procedure and condition this would be. Could you explain it to me so I can educate myself on it?
Feel free to look it up. A Google search of tubal ligation and birth control will get you plenty of info. I am no Dr either, and I only know what she was told. Maybe after the procedure she could go on pills instead, which may be covered by HL, I don't know. My point stands though. According to you, and hobby lobby, she should have surgery instead of a simple procedure done at her yearly appointment. Even take her problems out of the equation, that is nuts/stupid, especially for people who have issues with anaesthesia.
Last edited by memphisblues1986; 07-01-2014 at 02:13 PM..
Reason: added to last sentence
That seems to be the case vthe ruling really is very illogical. I don't usually say anything about supreme court decisions, but this one stands out for its flat lack if coherency.
What's not to understand? The HHS secretary decided to impose new regulations which violated existing law.
Feel free to look it up. A Google search of tubal ligation and birth control will get you plenty of info. I am no Dr either, and I only know what she was told. Maybe after the procedure she could go on pills instead, which may be covered by HL, I don't know. My point stands though.
A point you are unable to prove does not continue to stand.
Quote:
According to you, and hobby lobby, she should have surgery instead of a simple procedure done at her yearly appointment. Even take her problems out of the equation, that is nuts/stupid, especially for people who have issues with anaesthesia.
What procedure? And whatever it is Hobby Lobby wouldn't stop her from having it done.
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.
