Health Law’s Contraceptive Coverage Isn’t Burden on Religion, Court Rules

Henrin said:

We could just end prescription drug laws that would lead to increased access and lower costs, but that's scary and stuff.

Click to expand...

I like the theory...even though it would leave a great portion of Americans S.O. L.

year2late said:

I like the theory...even though it would leave a great portion of Americans S.O. L.

Click to expand...

The proposal is dangerous really. While people could still go to the doctor to know what drugs they need, there would some that didn't and ended up taking a drug they shouldn't or mixing drugs unwisely causing themselves great bodily harm. Then of course, some drugs could become less useful due to overuse that would put a strain on medical treatments and could very well lead to higher morality rates. It's a proposal that most people would reject out of hand as crazy, irresponsible, and just flat out unacceptable. I know that, but still, I support it because I think prescription drugs laws create a government sanctioned monopoly, limit choices of both providers and consumers, keep competition out of the drug industry, and ultimately increase costs for everyone. Like most things it's matter of what you find important and what you don't. For some they will find the risks to great and side with safety, while people like myself will side with freedom over safety.

As for people being S.O.L, I don't see how. People could still get their drugs from doctors and the government could still provide them assistance to pay for them.

Henrin said:

The proposal is dangerous really. While people could still go to the doctor to know what drugs they need, there would some that didn't and ended up taking a drug they shouldn't or mixing drugs unwisely causing themselves great bodily harm. Then of course, some drugs could become less useful due to overuse that would put a strain on medical treatments and could very well lead to higher morality rates. It's a proposal that most people would reject out of hand as crazy, irresponsible, and just flat out unacceptable. I know that, but still, I support it because I think prescription drugs laws create a government sanctioned monopoly, limit choices of both providers and consumers, keep competition out of the drug industry, and ultimately increase costs for everyone. Like most things it's matter of what you find important and what you don't. For some they will find the risks to great and side with safety, while people like myself will side with freedom over safety.

As for people being S.O.L, I don't see how. People could still get their drugs from doctors and the government could still provide them assistance to pay for them.

Click to expand...

What creates the government sanctioned monopoly is lobbyists (etc) being in the back pocket of our politicians on both sides of the aisle.

Easy peasy. Any politician who directly or indirectly (through pacs and superpacs) is benifited by a corporation (or union etc) should abstain from voting on anything that would benefit that corporation (or union).

Can you imagine how that would change things???

Babylon_Drifter said:

Tax the churches; problem solved. No more free meals.

Click to expand...

All charities, or just churches?

digitusmedius said:

But if any of those entities open a public facility such as a hospital then they are subject to the same civil laws that all businesses whether profit or non-profit that everyone else is.

Click to expand...

In the case of the Contraception issue, it is not a matter of law, but that of an executive mandate.

digitusmedius said:

The "hostility" is to people like you who play fast and loose with the truth in order to impose your religious beliefs. It's not personal as much as aimed at that most un-American intent to pervert our secular form of government.

Click to expand...

No, the problem is when a secular government turns their social policies into psuedo rights ("free" BC from a particular source), then orders private citizens to fullfill this false "right".

Allowing a government to turn social policies into rights may seem like a good idea, but the concept is not healthy for a democracy (right wing and especially left wing authoratarians create lot of social "rights" to further their political interests). In democracies, citizens remain as autonomous as possible from the government. This means, that they are not obligated to supply ammunition, BC, alcohol, pornography to their neighbors. Rather, if the neighbors want to purchase these items, they need to do so on their own or find a willing supplier.

digitusmedius said:

Whatever Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion in the Elk Grove case, it's important to point out, once again, that the ruling had nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment cause or the first amendment at all . . . So the idea that the Bill of Rights is not applicable to the states or even smaller units of government right down to school districts is absurd on its face. The supremacy clause tells us that no government entity can violate the federal Constitution.

Click to expand...

Please feel free to keep pretending to know what you do not. The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, sec. 2, has absolutely nothing to do with the doctrine of incorporation. Incorporation describes the process by which the Supreme Court, in a long series of decisions starting in the late 1800's, has used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply first one part of the Bill of Rights and then another to the states. It took the Court to do that, because as I mentioned earlier--and as you embarrassed yourself by denying, even though I quoted the Court itself to prove the point--nothing in the first eight amendments originally applied the states, but only to the federal government. As the Court noted in the passage I quoted, it established that principle in 1833, in Barron v. Baltimore. Let me repeat that passage here, in case you would like to deny it again:

The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, originally applied only to the Federal Government. In Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833), the Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Marshall, explained that this question was “of great importance” but “not of much difficulty.” Id., at 247. In less than four pages, the Court firmly rejected the proposition that the first eight Amendments operate as limitations on the States, holding that they apply only to the Federal Government. See also Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet. 469, 551–552 (1833) (“t is now settled that those amendments [in the Bill of Rights] do not extend to the states”).


I know how punctilious you are about correct citation, so let me note a couple points. I have followed standard Bluebook style here by omitting the opening and closing quotation marks where the quotation is more than fifty words. As you can see, I did however leave in the Court's own quotation marks. Also, the online version of the case I took this quote from is not paginated. I can at least give you the proper citation, though--the case is McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). And the quote is from Part II A of Justice Alito's decision for the majority. You can find Part II by going to the end of Part I, and then continuing.

Part II D of the majority opinion in McDonald also contains a very good discussion of the history of the incorporation doctrine and the different philosophical views several justices have advanced about what provisions should and should not be incorporated, and why. Recalling that you peevishly dismissed Adamson v. California as irrelevant when I discussed it earlier, I should forewarn you that Justice Alito also discusses it.

Footnotes 12 and 13 discuss in detail which parts of the Bill of Rights the Court has and has not incorporated and applied to the states. Footnote 12 lists, by amendment, the cases in which the Court incorporated particular parts. Note that the Establishment Clause, which you claim to understand so much better than Justice Thomas, was first applied to the states only in 1947, in Everson v. Board. That means that during much of this country's history, although Congress was forbidden to make any establishment of religion, states were quite free to make them. Why--that tends to support Thomas' argument, which builds on discussions in Abington Township v. Schempp and McGowan v. Maryland, that the Establishment Clause is a federalism provision that was meant to preserve the states' right to make religious establishments!

In Footnote 13, Justice Alito flatly disagrees with your assertion that "the idea that the Bill of Rights is not applicable to the states . . . is absurd on its face." He cites specific parts of the Bill of Rights the Court has not incorporated, for example the Fifth Amendment grand jury indictment requirement, the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases, and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of excessive fines. Footnote 14 also takes up the complex issue of the incorporation of the Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury verdict.

digitusmedius said:

The "hostility" is to people like you who play fast and loose with the truth in order to impose your religious beliefs. It's not personal as much as aimed at that most un-American intent to pervert our secular form of government.

Click to expand...

You have not the faintest idea of what my religious beliefs are, or if I even have any. For all the hell you know, I worship the goddess Kali and am a member of a secret cult that has revived the ancient Indian practice of thuggee.

Considering the many misstatements of fact in your clownish maunderings about constitutional law, you should be careful about accusing me, or anyone else, of playing fast and loose with the truth. There are some very intelligent, knowledgeable people here, and you have put your disregard for facts on full display for them.

Henrin said:

I'm not here to defend them, so take it up with someone who is.

Click to expand...

You seem to lack even enough self-awareness that you are one based on the stuff you're writing on here.

matchlight said:

You have not the faintest idea of what my religious beliefs are, or if I even have any. For all the hell you know, I worship the goddess Kali and am a member of a secret cult that has revived the ancient Indian practice of thuggee.

Click to expand...

One of the funniest things about people like you is your belief that you're hard to read. It's part of your general lack of self-awareness that you think you're cleverly masking your motives and goals.

Considering the many misstatements of fact in your clownish maunderings about constitutional law, you should be careful about accusing me, or anyone else, of playing fast and loose with the truth. There are some very intelligent, knowledgeable people here, and you have put your disregard for facts on full display for them.

Click to expand...

Oh, you're massacring of the truth and facts of all the cases you've cited is well-documented now so now you're reduced to pure silliness. You were challenged to start backing your "analyses" of SCOTUS rulings up with actual constitutional expert references and you tellingly refused to do this or even give us link to where you're copying your comments. So, having completely failed that credibility test you've decided to shorten your comments to just childish tongue-sticking. As I said before, the votes are in and you have none.

digitusmedius said:

You seem to lack even enough self-awareness that you are one based on the stuff you're writing on here.

Click to expand...

I will not be having a discussion on if I am or if I am not a member of a group that the FBI considers terrorists. If you desire to continue this discussion you should be aware that calling someone a criminal is against forum rules.

Henrin said:

I will not be having a discussion on if I am or if I am not a member of a group that the FBI considers terrorists. If you desire to continue this discussion you should be aware that calling someone a criminal is against forum rules.

Click to expand...

The FBI thinks libertarians are terrorists? Since when?

digitusmedius said:

The FBI thinks libertarians are terrorists? Since when?

Click to expand...

The FBI considers sovereign citizens to be terrorists. Do not accuse me of being a sovereign citizen again. This is the last post I will make on the matter.

Henrin said:

The FBI considers sovereign citizens to be terrorists. Do not accuse me of being a sovereign citizen again. This is the last post I will make on the matter.

Click to expand...

Are you a supporter or critic of Cliven Bundy. That will settle the issue.

Henrin said:

The FBI considers sovereign citizens to be terrorists. Do not accuse me of being a sovereign citizen again. This is the last post I will make on the matter.

Click to expand...

Ummm, hello? Anyone there? The Cliven Bundy question, did you see it yet? Anyone? Bueller?

Henrin said:

This is the last post I will make on the matter.

Click to expand...

I have no tolerance for bratty children, so move along now.

Henrin said:

I have no tolerance for bratty children, so move along now.

Click to expand...

Your refusal to answer that easy question which would clearly tell us where you stand on sovereign citizens actually reveals that despite your hollow (and exaggerated) protests (which by themselves told us too much) you are in fact part of (or at least an enthusiastic supporter) the radical sovereign citizen movement. You really should have just come clean at the outset rather than reveal is it in such a cowardly way.

Henrin said:

I love how all the government has to do to get out the fact that they violating the peoples rights is to offer people the chance to opt-out of whatever the act might be. It's like the courts don't even realize that doesn't actually somehow avoid the fact that the government is violating peoples rights, but actually makes it worse.

Click to expand...

The most fun thing about monitoring libertoonians is how they make up these rights so they can manufacture the violation of them. It's a closed loop of loony.

Henrin said:

I also can't help but wonder what is so hard to understand about "I don't ****ing want to do this".

Click to expand...

What is so hard to understand about not every individual getting to do whatever he wants regardless of the rest of society? I don't want my taxes to be spent on f***ing massive and wasteful military boondoggles and invading other countries whenever we get pissed off but I don't throw a temper tantrum about it. I vote for people who I hope will change it. And when that fails (as it always seems to) I see if I can find someone new to vote for who might do it. I don't cry in my beer over it constantly.

digitusmedius said:

What is so hard to understand about not every individual getting to do whatever he wants regardless of the rest of society? I don't want my taxes to be spent on f***ing massive and wasteful military boondoggles and invading other countries whenever we get pissed off but I don't throw a temper tantrum about it. I vote for people who I hope will change it. And when that fails (as it always seems to) I see if I can find someone new to vote for who might do it. I don't cry in my beer over it constantly.

Click to expand...

Your continued attention towards me is unwanted.

Henrin said:

Your continued attention towards me is unwanted.

Click to expand...

You misspelled "unwarranted"

joG said:

The problematic issue is, however, more with the funds that feed Affordable Care as everyone whose money supports the system is personally involved. There is no opt out there, as far as I know. Or do you know of one?

Click to expand...

As to the first point, that is the way all insurance works. Premiums are paid in and distributed as benefits regardless of the personal feelings of each policy holder about how the money is allocated. The opt out is to not get coverage, which shifts the burden of any current or future (and eventually almost everyone will have them) catastrophic medical costs from you to both the private and public financing of health care. For that privilege a penalty or tax is applied. Just as there's a requirement to have a minimal amount of automobile liability insurance in all the states (for the same basic economic reason) we are now required to have some at least minimal standard of health insurance.

Henrin said:

Your continued attention towards me is unwanted.

Click to expand...

Would you like me to tell you how to get to the ignore button?

matchlight said:

Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.

Click to expand...

As an attorney and law professor, I can tell you that the opinions of Clarence Thomas are poorly thought out. I have students who know the law better than Thomas.