Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 63

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE



    Score one for the Christian companies and the 1st Amendment. In a hotly contested political setback for liberals SCOTUS ruled, 5-4, they do not have to pay for contraceptives according to the law.

    Me thinks Roberts is looking like a genius after allowing O BUMMER CARE into law. He just wanted his court to look fair in the eyes of history all the while knowing it might fall under it's own weight as it was doing.

    And now his fair court is throwing out key parts of it already that were important to certain people but it only applies to Christian companies at that under the 1st Amendment.

    Justice Ginsberg wrote that the court was walking into a mine field.


    http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politi...ion/index.html
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-02-2014 at 04:52 PM.




  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,857
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    I kind of see this as a good thing and a bad thing.

    The good I see is that I don't think that any law should mandate someone has to pay for something they don't directly use or need. Regardless of religious belief, making an 80 year old have to pay for a health insurance policy that includes contraception is pretty over the top nonsensical.

    The bad I see is this could now pave the way for religious zealots to make a case that other laws and statutes shouldn't apply to them because it infringes on their religious beliefs. I just see this being potentially abused.

    This is why they should have looked at the damn ACA law with a fine toothed comb before declaring it law to begin with. Things like this could have been considered and addressed a year ago.
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Good post except for the other laws. There's so much crap that's covered and spot on about looking more at the law. We were just discussing tonight. I said the justices even joked about not reading all of the law. I think it was Kennedy who said do you expect us to read this entire law or is this something our law clerks can do? ILAMO

    Point is, nobody has read the thousands of pages except those that wrote it.

    I asked my waitress tonight if she got cheap insurance and said said it's reasonable but not cheap. She didn't even know it covered this stuff. People don't know that it also covers other stuff.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-03-2014 at 04:59 AM.




  4. #4

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    It was a no-brainer decision assuming one relied on the written law(s) and not some nebulous and personal sense of social justice. The 4 dissenting Justices are a disgrace to the profession, and all of the critics of the decision are completely ignorant of the facts/law and/or being disingenuous so as to persuade others who are ignorant.

    It is one thing to complain about the relevant laws themselves (and try to change them), it is quite another to inanely argue that they should be ignored by Justices whose sole purpose is to rely on the law for their decisions.

    And the Hobby Lobby decision did not rely on the 1st Amendment, it relied on the RFRA, which was a law passed unanimously in the House, and 97-3 in the Senate, and signed into law by Clinton. The RFRA was passed specifically to clarify the "people's" feelings regarding the balance between the 1st Amendment and governmental burdens (laws/mandates), and came about in response to the vastly unpopular Employment Division v. Smith decision.

    In addition, the challenge in the Hobby Lobby case was not to the ACA, as written, but rather the mandate issued by HHS regarding coverage requirements. In fact, the ACA would not have even passed at all, even with the massive Democrat majorities in Congress at the time, if it had included these 'contraception'/abortifacient mandates.




  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    It was a no-brainer decision assuming one relied on the written law(s) and not some nebulous and personal sense of social justice. The 4 dissenting Justices are a disgrace to the profession, and all of the critics of the decision are completely ignorant of the facts/law and/or being disingenuous so as to persuade others who are ignorant.

    It is one thing to complain about the relevant laws themselves (and try to change them), it is quite another to inanely argue that they should be ignored by Justices whose sole purpose is to rely on the law for their decisions.

    And the Hobby Lobby decision did not rely on the 1st Amendment, it relied on the RFRA, which was a law passed unanimously in the House, and 97-3 in the Senate, and signed into law by Clinton. The RFRA was passed specifically to clarify the "people's" feelings regarding the balance between the 1st Amendment and governmental burdens (laws/mandates), and came about in response to the vastly unpopular Employment Division v. Smith decision.

    In addition, the challenge in the Hobby Lobby case was not to the ACA, as written, but rather the mandate issued by HHS regarding coverage requirements. In fact, the ACA would not have even passed at all, even with the massive Democrat majorities in Congress at the time, if it had included these 'contraception'/abortifacient mandates.
    Great, great post.

    The liberal judges vote party line on all major cases like this while GOPs like Roberts and Kennedy will cross over at times.




  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,857
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    It was a no-brainer decision assuming one relied on the written law(s) and not some nebulous and personal sense of social justice. The 4 dissenting Justices are a disgrace to the profession, and all of the critics of the decision are completely ignorant of the facts/law and/or being disingenuous so as to persuade others who are ignorant.

    It is one thing to complain about the relevant laws themselves (and try to change them), it is quite another to inanely argue that they should be ignored by Justices whose sole purpose is to rely on the law for their decisions.

    And the Hobby Lobby decision did not rely on the 1st Amendment, it relied on the RFRA, which was a law passed unanimously in the House, and 97-3 in the Senate, and signed into law by Clinton. The RFRA was passed specifically to clarify the "people's" feelings regarding the balance between the 1st Amendment and governmental burdens (laws/mandates), and came about in response to the vastly unpopular Employment Division v. Smith decision.

    In addition, the challenge in the Hobby Lobby case was not to the ACA, as written, but rather the mandate issued by HHS regarding coverage requirements. In fact, the ACA would not have even passed at all, even with the massive Democrat majorities in Congress at the time, if it had included these 'contraception'/abortifacient mandates.
    I agree.

    In fact, judges (especially SCOTUS) should not be affiliated with any party.

    I've always disliked that.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,506

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    I agree.

    In fact, judges (especially SCOTUS) should not be affiliated with any party.

    I've always disliked that.
    Pretty sure at the federal level, you cannot be party affiliated. I'll have to ask my wife.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,857
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Pretty sure at the federal level, you cannot be party affiliated. I'll have to ask my wife.
    Sure doesn't seem that way!
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Btw, maybe her rates aren't so cheap because over the thanksgiving holiday OBY raised taxes by 3% to cover O BUMMER CARE which is exactly what we said they would do. I was arguing with someone about this on FB who said he got cheap insurance.

    I said that cheap insurance just got more expensive over the weekend and you didn't even know it.

    Three % isn't much now but it will go up and up. Nothing is free or cheap.




  10. #10

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    The cheapest plans provide little coverage except to bail the government out of paying the bill for uninsured , now after the 6000 deductible. That plan costs the government 6000 a year.... and pay for a checkup a year and small tests. Its a rip-off.
    Way Down South in New Orleans




  11. #11

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    What Obama got was a bad deal in....
    Way Down South in New Orleans




  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,506

    SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Did any of you read the case facts or the ruling? Because it certainly appears some of you have not and instead have believed the rhetoric from the extreme sides in this case.

    For one, there were only 4 types of contraception Hobby Lobby (on behalf of their employees) opposed -- two forms of the morning after pill and two types of IUD's -- which they believed amounted to defacto abortions since they didn't allow the fertilized egg to attach to the uterus. All other forms of birth control are fine in their eyes, including vasectomy, birth control pills, condoms, etc, so I'm not sure where the hypocrisy claims are coming from.

    Second, this ruling isn't bestowing religious freedoms to a corporation as many are portraying it. It's a recognition that the employees of said cooperation have a right to free exercise of their religion at the work place. That's a distinction many on the left are refusing to accept.

    Lastly, the slippery slope argument about what it means in the future is a fallacy. Any SCOTUS ruling can be labeled as such so it means everything and nothing at the same time.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Did any of you read the case facts or the ruling? Because it certainly appears some of you have not and instead have believed the rhetoric from the extreme sides in this case.

    For one, there were only 4 types of contraception Hobby Lobby (on behalf of their employees) opposed -- two forms of the morning after pill and two types of IUD's -- which they believed amounted to defacto abortions since they didn't allow the fertilized egg to attach to the uterus. All other forms of birth control are fine in their eyes, including vasectomy, birth control pills, condoms, etc, so I'm not sure where the hypocrisy claims are coming from.


    No hypocrisy. The family originally wanted block their employees from seeing doctors on contraceptive issues they might have to pay for. They focused on what they could get - the 4 types because they induce abortions. Abortion is the issue here and this paves the way for other cases to throw the rest out and thus the mine field that Ginsberg speaks of. Keep it in context:

    The four include two “emergency contraceptives” — Plan B and ella — and two intrauterine devices (IUDs).
    Members of the Green family who own Hobby Lobby say those contraceptives are abortifacients — that they induce abortion.
    The point has led to some disputes in legal filings with the U.S. Supreme Court about the definitions of abortion and pregnancy.
    A group of obstetricians, gynecologists and other physicians told the justices that abortion is the termination of a pregnancy and the contraceptives at issue can’t induce abortion because they only work before pregnancy.
    The Greens counter that the contraceptives can prevent the implantation in the uterus of a fertilized egg. They say that is the destruction of life and that forcing them to offer those contraceptives makes them complicit in abortion.
    If the U.S. Supreme Court rules for Hobby Lobby, the argument over specific kinds of contraceptives may be irrelevant.

    So there's no hypocrisy on the family's part. They got what they wanted.

    The link in the OP says this decision opens a pandora's box for the other specific issues which is what Ginsberg meant when she said the court was walking into a mine field. There are other cases before the court now.



    Second, this ruling isn't bestowing religious freedoms to a corporation as many are portraying it.

    It's a lot more than what they had a week ago and more will be thrown out of the act. After the beatings that Christians have taken since Wade vs Roe, make no mistake about it, it's a big moral W for the religious right.


    It's a recognition that the employees of said cooperation have a right to free exercise of their religion at the work place. That's a distinction many on the left are refusing to accept.

    As stated in the OP it only applies to Christian companies and non-profit Christian companies but it's big after having had the entire act OKed. HOBBY LOBBY doesn't have to pay for the above mentioned contraceptives for their employes so it's a big victory for them but if these other issues are favorably passed, then it's a bigger W for the evangelical movement. Had they rejected paying for the above, they could have been fined hundreds of thousands pr yr by IRS according to the law. Read Gisnberg's and the rest of the opposing side remarks in the links above. They're not happy campers.

    BTW, go a google and see how many Christian non profit organizations there are, especially Christian colleges and universities. There's tons of them and they won't have to pay for these.


    Lastly, the slippery slope argument about what it means in the future is a fallacy. Any SCOTUS ruling can be labeled as such so it means everything and nothing at the same time.
    But fear not. The gov't will probably subsidize anyone who wants contraceptives that works for HOBBY LOBBY or other companies and the debt will go even higher and the country will crash even faster. Just ask Sandra Flutie. She got her free condoms.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-05-2014 at 10:33 PM.




  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    This is what Ginsberg meant when she said mine fied and why she is worried as the rest of the losing side.

    FROM FOX.COM/OPINION

    __________________________


    But the fate of the Obama administration’s so-called “accommodation” for religious non-profits is the subject of other lawsuits that are making their way through the lower courts now.

    The religious organizations that are plaintiffs in the 51 non-profit lawsuits filed so far are diverse in faith backgrounds and in purpose. They include religious hospitals, ministries, colleges and universities—including my alma maters, Franciscan University and the University of Notre Dame—as well as orders of priests and nuns, such as Priests for Life and the Little Sisters of the Poor.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-05-2014 at 02:15 PM.




  15. #15

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post
    This is what Ginsberg meant when she said mine fied and why she is worried as the rest of the losing side.

    FROM FOX.COM/OPINION

    __________________________


    But the fate of the Obama administration’s so-called “accommodation” for religious non-profits is the subject of other lawsuits that are making their way through the lower courts now.

    The religious organizations that are plaintiffs in the 51 non-profit lawsuits filed so far are diverse in faith backgrounds and in purpose. They include religious hospitals, ministries, colleges and universities—including my alma maters, Franciscan University and the University of Notre Dame—as well as orders of priests and nuns, such as Priests for Life and the Little Sisters of the Poor.
    This issue isn't really the slippery slope "minefield" that Ginsburg was threatening (that minefield had more to do with a flood of nebulous or fraudulent 'religious' objections to all manner of other government requirements).

    This issue that you mention above is very much related/similar to the Hobby Lobby issue. In fact, the Court issued an order on Thursday in Wheaton College v. Burwell indicating there is likely to be problems with the 'accommodation' requirements. The three female Justices dissented on the order, but their dissent was nonsensical to say the least. In fact, Sotomayor, who wrote the dissent, made it obvious she completely misunderstood the Hobby Lobby decision (by Alito). It is a rather embarrassing mistake, or at least it should be.

    The issue concerning the "accommodation" basically comes down to the issue of whether the entity who is objecting to the coverage and seeking the 'accommodation' has to fill out and sign EBSA Form 700 and submit it to their insurance provider (as well as to the federal government).

    The Form essentially requires the insurance provider to provide the 'contraceptives' without charging the objecting entity, so supposedly for 'free.' Besides the transparent accounting gimmick (as if something can actually be without 'cost' just because everyone pretends someone else is 'paying' for it), the issue is that the Form is seen as a directive from the objector, to the third party provider, to provide the objected-to contraceptives. These objecting entities do not want to be involved in providing these contraceptives at all, not just in terms of monetary cost but also in terms of being in a chain of directives to provide them.

    The temporary Court order in Wheaton College v. Burwell indicated that the College does not have to fill out the Form or send anything to the third party provider, but rather has to simply send an official letter of objection to the mandate to the government. At which point the government can/should, if it wishes, send whatever it wants to the third party provider demanding it provide the 'free' contraceptives to the employees.

    In short, the issue comes down to who tells the insurance provider they have to provide the 'free' contraceptives, the objector (through Form 700) or the government. The former can be seen as the objector being involved in the providing of the contraceptives, the latter cannot.

    As for Sotomayor's confusion regarding Alito's Hobby Lobby decision, she incorrectly asserts Alito indicated that the "accommodation" (as it currently stands) was endorsed by his decision, when in reality, he specifically said he was making no judgment on that except to show that in the Hobby Lobby decision, it clearly indicates that the government was not using the "least restrictive" way for it to achieve its goals of getting Hobby Lobby's employees the 'contraceptives,' as it had already designed a 'less restrictive' accommodation for non-profit religious groups. That Sotomayor either is not intelligent enough to understand the plain text of the decision or is not honest enough to present it as it was written, is very sad, but frankly it doesn't surprise me.
    Last edited by Haloti92; 07-05-2014 at 03:29 PM.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland