Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 63
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE



    It was also interesting but depressing to see another land mark decision made at the same time as O BUMMER CARE where the court effectively erased the border of Arizona and Mexico.

    Kennedy and Roberts voted with the liberal branch in regard to
    immigration searches and seizure.




  2. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7,256

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Two big problems with this ruling.

    1) Hobby Lobby's internal logic is inconsistent. If they protested on the basis that birth control prevents pregnancy, they should not still cover vasectomies. But they do still cover vasectomies. That is just hypocrisy. That's hypocrisy on an obvious and repugnant level.

    2) The ruling, as wickedsolo pointed out, opens the door for a lot in the future. The ruling essentially states that so long as a corporation believes something is true, the government should act as though the something is true. Hobby Lobby expressed belief that birth control is an abortifacient. Birth control is not an abortifacient. So, now, 100% demonstrably false belief is supposed to be respected? Kowtowed to, treated with kid gloves? No.

    This is a somewhat horrific ruling that I see changing resoundingly sometime in my life, probably in the next 10 years.




  3. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    North Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    1,799

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    Two big problems with this ruling.

    1) Hobby Lobby's internal logic is inconsistent. If they protested on the basis that birth control prevents pregnancy, they should not still cover vasectomies. But they do still cover vasectomies. That is just hypocrisy. That's hypocrisy on an obvious and repugnant level.

    2) The ruling, as wickedsolo pointed out, opens the door for a lot in the future. The ruling essentially states that so long as a corporation believes something is true, the government should act as though the something is true. Hobby Lobby expressed belief that birth control is an abortifacient. Birth control is not an abortifacient. So, now, 100% demonstrably false belief is supposed to be respected? Kowtowed to, treated with kid gloves? No.

    This is a somewhat horrific ruling that I see changing resoundingly sometime in my life, probably in the next 10 years.
    Whew, I'm so glad someone else on this board has the same exact view as me. I was horrified with the ruling and hadn't expected it to go through. Sometimes I feel like we're going backwards...




  4. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,500

    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.




  5. #20
    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.




  6. #21
    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.




  7. #22

    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.




  8. #23
    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
    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).

    Maybe not entirely but they are non-profit Christian organizations and that is what's covered by this decision. Suits have been filed and can be amended so at the very least it's related to the mine field. You're right that she meant so much more. I kept it to the issue at hand, so the liberals have a lot to be worried about.

    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.



    Last 2 sentences are directly related to the mine field. It's a big pandora's box getting very picky.


    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.
    Ditto and good post.




  9. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    These are six more cases field in the court with the last two in Feb so I think they're covered with today's decision or are they asking for more?


    Heritage reports that two more lawsuits have been filed against the Obama administration over Obamacare's HHS mandate, by religiously affiliated organizations, added to the previous filed brings the total up to six.

    That is not counting the dozen plus attorney generals for a variety of states that have already indicated they too will be filing court challenges against the so-called Contraception mandate that also includes forcing religious groups to offer insurance that covers sterilization and abortion induing drugs to their members.

    Today, Geneva College, a private institution in Pennsylvania associated with the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, held a press conference announcing it has filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration over the mandate’s infringement on religious liberty.

    [This was in the HObby Decision.][/I]

    The college takes issue with the mandate’s requirement to provide health insurance coverage of drugs like Plan B and ella, which can sometimes cause abortions in early pregnancy, at no cost to the insured. To effectively subsidize chemical abortions violates the college’s deeply held moral and religious beliefs and runs roughshod over the institution’s religious liberty and conscience rights.

    “The government shouldn’t be able to force anyone to buy or sell insurance that subsidizes morally objectionable treatments,” said Geneva College President Ken Smith.

    While the lawsuits filed this week focus on the mandate’s threat to religious freedom, the violations of liberty enabled by Obamacare’s unprecedented federal overreach could extend far beyond religious institutions.

    “People of faith shouldn’t be punished by the state for following that faith in making decisions for themselves or their organizations,” said Greg Baylor, senior counsel at ADF. “Every American should know that a government with the power to do this to anyone can do this—and worse—to everyone.”

    The Alliance Defense Fund also filed suit against the Obama Administration over the weekend on behalf of Louisiana College, a small Southern Baptist school located in the middle of the state. Like Geneva College and many others, Louisiana College holds deep moral objections to abortion and cannot in good conscience subsidize health insurance coverage of drugs that can end a pregnancy.



    Read the rest over at Heritage.

    Louisiana College press release below:

    ADF, Louisiana College challenge Obama mandate
    February 20th, 2012

    Federal lawsuit challenges Obama administration’s latest attack on religious freedom

    ALEXANDRIA, La. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Louisiana College Saturday against the Obama administration. The lawsuit challenges the administration’s unconstitutional mandate that religious employers provide abortifacients, sterilization, and contraception at no cost to employees regardless of religious or moral objections.

    “People of faith shouldn’t be punished by the government for following their beliefs when making decisions for themselves or their organizations,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “The Obama administration invented a fake ‘right’ to get ‘free’ abortion pills and sterilization and elevated it above real freedoms protected by the First Amendment. This calculated and intentional attempt to eradicate constitutional protections should terrify every freedom-loving American.”

    “The Obama administration has purposely transformed a non-existent problem–access to contraception–into a constitutional crisis,” said ADF-allied attorney and co-counsel Mike Johnson, dean of Louisiana College’s Pressler School of Law. “This mandate offers no choice; Americans either comply and abandon their convictions or resist and be punished.”

    President Obama held a press conference on Feb. 10 to offer a “compromise” under which some religious non-profit organizations would not have to comply with the mandate. Instead, the employer’s insurer would be required to offer the employer’s employees the same coverage at no charge. The “compromise”; however, does not exist in the rules or guidance Obama issued on Feb. 10, and the administration is not required to formally propose it.

    Theriot explained that even if the proposed change did exist and had coherent boundaries, it would still require the employer to facilitate coverage by providing and paying for an objectionable plan, the costs of which would be passed on to the employers and/or employees via premiums.

    “The time for silence is over,” said Louisiana College President Dr. Joe W. Aguillard. “Louisiana College will not sit by and allow this or any government to usurp our God-given religious freedoms and our time-honored Baptist heritage.”

    The new lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Louisiana College v. Sebelius, argues that the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the First and Fifth amendments to the U.S. Constitution.


    Previous WuA related posts

    Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist and Jewish Leaders Swear They Will Not Comply To Obama's Abortion Mandate

    Priests for Life Associate Director is Arrested Outside White House

    Harry Reid's Response To Americans Worried About Obama's Attack On Religion: 'Calm Down'

    Catholic League: Obama Legacy- 'The President That Brought The Culture War To Boil'

    Religious Freedom Lawsuits Against Obama's s Abortion Drug And Contraception Mandate

    Catholic Churches And Bishop of Marquette Punch Back At Obama's War On Religion

    Catholic League Prepared To Fight Back Against Obama's War On Religion

    .
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-05-2014 at 07:13 PM.




  10. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    NOW THIS IS THE MINE FIELD AND IT DIDN'T TAKE LONG, YEA IT HAS TO DO WITH THE FORMS MENTIONED ABOVE BUT IT'S ALL PART OF THE MINE FIELD.

    AND NOTE BOTTOM LINE, CHRISTIAN NON PROFIT CORPORATIONS HAVE RECEIVED 30 INJUNCTIONS VS THE MANDATE AND ONLY 3 WERE DENIED.
    THE COURT ALSO RULES IN FAVOR OF LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR.


    WHEATON IS THE HARVARD OF CHRISTIAN COLLEGES. BILLY GRAHAM IS PERHAPS ITS MOST FAMOUS ALUMN.



    FROM LIFENEWS.COM



    ________________________________

    Another big victory for the Chritian right as the ripple effect continues and the SC rules that Wheaton College, a Christian non profit school doesn't have to pay crippling IRS fines. H mentioned this case above.


    In another important victory against the HHS Mandate, Wheaton College received last minute relief from the Supreme Court, protecting the College’s right to carry out its religious mission free from crippling IRS fines.

    The Court’s order states that Wheaton “need not use the form prescribed by the Government” under the HHS Mandate, and it prohibits the government “from enforcing against [Wheaton] the challenged provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and related regulations pending final disposition of appellate review.”

    The order gives Wheaton the same relief that the Supreme Court gave to the Little Sisters of the Poor in January. It comes just days after Hobby Lobby and Eternal Word Television Network won similar victories at the Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit (see video).

    “The Court rightly recognized that Wheaton’s religious community should be allowed to practice its faith free from crushing government fines,”said Mark Rienzi, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund, which represents Wheaton College.

    Wheaton College is a pervasively Christian academic institution, whose motto is “For Christ and His Kingdom.” Its students, faculty, and staff commit to a Community Covenant that affirms “the God-given worth of human beings, from conception to death.”

    Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

    “On the eve of Independence Day, we are grateful to God that the Supreme Court has made a wise decision in protecting our religious liberty–at least until we have an opportunity to make our full case in court. We continue to believe that a college community that affirms the sanctity of human life from conception to the grave should not be coerced by the government into facilitating the provision of abortion-inducing drugs,” said Dr. Philip Ryken, President of Wheaton College.

    Today, thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision, Wheaton College joins Hobby Lobby, Eternal Word Television Network (see video) and many other organizations that that have received favorable rulings against the HHS Mandate. Non-profit religious organizations have now received 30 injunctions against the mandate; only three injunctions have been denied.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-05-2014 at 10:58 PM.




  11. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,832
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    Two big problems with this ruling.

    1) Hobby Lobby's internal logic is inconsistent. If they protested on the basis that birth control prevents pregnancy, they should not still cover vasectomies. But they do still cover vasectomies. That is just hypocrisy. That's hypocrisy on an obvious and repugnant level.

    2) The ruling, as wickedsolo pointed out, opens the door for a lot in the future. The ruling essentially states that so long as a corporation believes something is true, the government should act as though the something is true. Hobby Lobby expressed belief that birth control is an abortifacient. Birth control is not an abortifacient. So, now, 100% demonstrably false belief is supposed to be respected? Kowtowed to, treated with kid gloves? No.

    This is a somewhat horrific ruling that I see changing resoundingly sometime in my life, probably in the next 10 years.
    Never mind the fact that it is extremely chauvinistic.
    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




  12. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,832
    Blog Entries
    3

    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.

    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.

    The morning after pill is essentially an increased dosage of birth control pills. In addition, many women use IUDs for actual birth control. Not every woman reacts to birth control in the same way and I know several women who use IUDs because they (chemically) work for them.

    Frankly, I don't particularly care so much about the ruling as I do that these types of things should have been addressed before the law was even established.
    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




  13. #28

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    Never mind the fact that it is extremely chauvinistic.
    There is nothing chauvinistic about the stance. For starters, the comparison for a vasectomy is a tubal ligation and Hobby Lobby will cover and always has covered that, along with other forms of birth control.

    As for abortifacients, HR has it right. Contraception is defined as something that prevents conception. Conception absolutely can be viewed (and has been viewed) as the fertilization of an egg. Anything taken or done that destroys a fertilized egg can absolutely be viewed as an abortifacient, even if you happen to choose to define the term differently.

    The only possible gripe in terms of the abortifacients objected to is Plan B, as recent science seems to indicate it doesn't actually prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg as previously thought, but the label still claims it does/will/might and scientists have been slow to officially change their mind on it, even as the evidence keeps coming in.

    And of course, the crucial aspect here, and why the "war on women" meme is absurd nonsense (along with the similarly 'cute' but vapid phrases like 'keep your rosaries off my ovaries' and 'keep the boardroom out of my bedroom,' etc.) is that once you ask/demand someone else pay for and provide something for you, YOU have made it their business, not the other way around. Hobby Lobby is asking precisely to stay away from your ovaries and bedroom, but the government/you won't let them stay away.

    It is the height of selfishness to dismiss someone's religious views, especially considering the Constitution and the founding of the country, while simultaneously demanding they fork over money for you. And that is exactly what this case was about.

    The RFRA was passed specifically for cases like this one, and the administration knew flat out that demanding that everyone, regardless of religious beliefs, subsidize these controversial drugs/procedures would cause a big fight; which is precisely why Democrats did not explicitly include it in the written law, and went to great pains to deceive the small band of pro-life Democrats like Stupak with phony signing statements and bald-faced lies, only to turn around and mandate it from the HHS after the law was passed (and to be sure, the law does not pass if this mandate were included at the time).

    None of these birth control methods are being banned or are any harder to come by than they were a couple years ago (which is not hard at all), so the "back to the dark ages" and "back to the Jim Crow" nonsense is targeted towards morons only. This is solely a matter of who pays for them or provides them. And if the government feels that strongly about it, it can pass a law to provide them directly to whoever wants them without infringing on anyone's beliefs at all. That is the sensible way to go here, the only question is why some people refuse to accept the sensible way to go. So far I have seen no good answer.
    Last edited by Haloti92; 07-06-2014 at 02:23 AM.




  14. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    Never mind the fact that it is extremely chauvinistic.
    You left out Viagra. Hobby also covers that. Nothing more chauvinistic for Viagra or at least guys trying to be chauvinistic if you get the draft, I mean drift. Even Rush got caught with the stuff in his luggage coming into the country but didn't seem too embarrassed. Said he got it in the Clinton Library.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5543916.html


    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-06-2014 at 01:56 AM.




  15. #30

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Another inane article from Huffington post. Once again I am left to guess whether the author is simply not very bright or whether he is being disingenuous to try to persuade the not-very-bright. It is certainly one or the other (or both).

    Contained in the amusing piece are all the answers and rebuttals to the author's and tweeters' ridiculously weak complaints.

    Viagra treats an actual medical dysfunction. There is no really equivalent problem for women as erectile dysfunction. The religious entities being discussed understand, unlike the author and his comrades, that there is a crucial difference between procreating and preventing procreation.

    As for Hobby Lobby and vasectomies, already addressed, and there is nothing legitimate to whine about.




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