Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 63
  1. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    12,281
    Blog Entries
    4

    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 09:58 PM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  2. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    28,344
    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


    My RSR Blog:
    http://russellstreetreport.com/author/paullukoskie/

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




  3. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    28,344
    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


    My RSR Blog:
    http://russellstreetreport.com/author/paullukoskie/

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




  4. #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 01:23 AM.




  5. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    12,281
    Blog Entries
    4

    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 12:56 AM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  6. #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.




  7. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    12,281
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    I agree. My entire post above yours was sarcastic in response to Solo's quip and I just used the link to show
    Viagra was covered and how inane the author was. The libbies are taking a beating on this thread largely to
    your posts. Just Google the arguments used vs HOBBY's 401 K plans where people accuse them of hypocrisy.
    Not a good time for libbies.

    Like I posted, the family tried to block their employees from seeing doctors on any contraceptive issues but
    took what they could probably win with and their landmark decision paves the way for the mine field of
    companies that will take out the rest or try to. Anyway that knocks out the hypocritical argument.

    The Catholic Network is also involved in this decision although Notre Dame University as a non profit organization
    was one of the three injunctions vs the mandate that was denied by the Court.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-06-2014 at 05:28 AM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  8. #32

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post
    I agree. My entire post above yours was sarcastic in response to Solo's quip and I just used the link to show
    Viagra was covered and how inane the author was. The libbies are taking a beating on this thread largely to
    your posts. Just Google the arguments used vs HOBBY's 401 K plans where people accuse them of hypocrisy.
    Not a good time for libbies.

    Like I posted, the family tried to block their employees from seeing doctors on any contraceptive issues but
    took what they could probably win with and their landmark decision paves the way for the mine field of
    companies that will take out the rest or try to. Anyway that knocks out the hypocritical argument.

    The Catholic Network is also involved in this decision although Notre Dame University as a non profit organization
    was one of the three injunctions vs the mandate that was denied by the Court.
    Oh, I know you weren't agreeing with the HuffPo piece. I realize that you are just gloating on this thread.

    But I am actually amazed by the embarrassing, childlike arguments being presented by the left on this decision/issue. It is like they can't be bothered to simply listen to what the other guy is saying and respond, instead choosing to pretend the other side has given no explanation, while responding to absurd arguments they have invented in their heads.

    The HuffPo piece was a perfect example. "Hobby Lobby still covers vasectomies and Viagra..." without any argument whatsoever as to why this should be surprising, let alone hypocritical. It still covers tubal ligations. It covers legitimate medical dysfunction, and procreation isn't abortion.

    It is like the guy's brain could only work out "something has to do with guy private parts good, something to do with female special parts bad.....something wrong here" when this isn't the debate at all. In fact, in the HuffPo piece the guy actually includes the reasons why his whole side of the argument is terrible by giving, and then failing to address in any way, the opponents' reasons for their decisions (and it isn't: women bad, men good, as the many keep implying without a shred of evidence or logic)
    Last edited by Haloti92; 07-06-2014 at 07:58 AM.




  9. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,347

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    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.
    Ok. Not sure on your point since access to these four things hasn't been touched. So why should someone who feels its tantamount to abortion have to pay for it?

    FTR, I have a disdain for organized religion. I just have an even stronger disdain for unnecessary handouts or violations of the 1st Amendment. As silly as I find the concept of organized religion, far be it for me (more importantly, the federal government) to tell someone of faith how to live their faith, considering it's guaranteed in the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    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.
    As Nancy Pelosi famously quipped, you had to pass the law to find out what was in it. Conservatives did everything and then some to make sure this law was at least read before it was jammed down out throats. I think you know where to lay blame.
    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.




  10. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    28,344
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Ok. Not sure on your point since access to these four things hasn't been touched. So why should someone who feels its tantamount to abortion have to pay for it?

    FTR, I have a disdain for organized religion. I just have an even stronger disdain for unnecessary handouts or violations of the 1st Amendment. As silly as I find the concept of organized religion, far be it for me (more importantly, the federal government) to tell someone of faith how to live their faith, considering it's guaranteed in the Constitution.



    As Nancy Pelosi famously quipped, you had to pass the law to find out what was in it. Conservatives did everything and then some to make sure this law was at least read before it was jammed down out throats. I think you know where to lay blame.



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

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger


    My RSR Blog:
    http://russellstreetreport.com/author/paullukoskie/

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




  11. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    12,281
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    HR SAID: Conservatives did everything and then some to make sure this law was at least read before it was jammed down out throats. I think you know where to lay blame.
    ______________________________________________________________


    Conservatives tried to get 535 members of Congress to read it. AFter 1 week they found 2 takers and not only for this bill but many others with only 1,000 pages or less to read.

    FROM POLITICO.COM

    _______________________________________________________

    A week after starting the campaign, Let Freedom Ring has found at least two takers out of 535: Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.).

    “Americans are outraged when they find out members vote on bills they’ve never read,” DeMint said through a spokesman. “Voters deserve to know their elected officials are going through every bill to stop waste, fraud and abuse and ensure bad policy doesn’t become law. Health care is too important an issue to rush through without honest and open debate.”

    _____________________________________________________



    It was JUstice Kennedy who said are we expected to read all these pages or can
    our law clerks read it for us?

    That was the problem, the court ruled on something none of them had even read including Roberts and now he's going back in and taking key stuff out.

    He shouldn't have ruled it was OK in the beginning of it had he read any of this shit, and we wouldn't be talking about now. There's thousands of pages that have never been read except by the ones who wrote it.

    My friend's oxygen company was dropped by Medicare because they didn't come under the new guidelines of the Act. Medicare has dropped many companies that don't meet the criteria. They're pulling all this shit out nobody knows about.

    Another guy went for a sleep study so Medicare would pay for his bi pap machine. The guide lines demanded the sleep study even though he had used a machine for the past 15 yrs. Prob, was, he has insominia and can't get to sleep. He failed two studies and medicare wasn't going to pay for a new machine he needed. Finally, the doc gave him a sleeping pill which was risky because it slows the lungs down and his were already slowed down but just one should have been OK. It was and he got to sleep so medicare paid for the machine and 3 sleep studies that cost $1100 pr.

    The paper work is driving doctors offices nuts, some doctors are retiring.

    Nobody even knows this crap is in there, at least not many.



    That's the absurdity of it.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-06-2014 at 06:14 PM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  12. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    12,281
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Ok. Not sure on your point since access to these four things hasn't been touched. So why should someone who feels its tantamount to abortion have to pay for it?

    FTR, I have a disdain for organized religion. I just have an even stronger disdain for unnecessary handouts or violations of the 1st Amendment. As silly as I find the concept of organized religion, far be it for me (more importantly, the federal government) to tell someone of faith how to live their faith, considering it's guaranteed in the Constitution.



    As Nancy Pelosi famously quipped, you had to pass the law to find out what was in it. Conservatives did everything and then some to make sure this law was at least read before it was jammed down out throats.
    This DEM didn't read it. Who is going to read over 10,000 pages of a bill, 8 TIMES as many pages as the Guttenberg Bible.

    ____________________________________

    CNSNews.com: “What I was going to ask you is if you’ve read those [10,535 pages] of regulations.”

    Waxman said: “Have you read them?”

    CNSNews.com: “No. Have you read them?”

    Waxman said: “Is it important that I read it?”

    CNSNews.com: “Do you think that the American people should read it? I just asked you a very honest question. Whether you’ve read them? It’s a yes or no question.”

    Waxman: “I think it is a propaganda question, and I refuse to talk to you about it.”
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-06-2014 at 06:11 PM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




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