Page 60 of 129 FirstFirst ... 1050585960616270110 ... LastLast
Results 591 to 600 of 1290

Thread: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge[W:513,870]

  1. #591
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,751

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Do you know how many poor women working for Hobby Lobby were impacted by this decision? Or how many HL employees by definition are poor?

    I don't think anything noteworthy will happen. Sure there will be appeals, but as long as the RFRA stays on the books, the case is closed. And most people will never feel any impact from this decision.
    No, I don't know. Do you know how many women working for HL or the approximately half the working population in small, family owned firms who will be affected and who are part of the millions of working poor? Do you assume that number is positive?

    As an aside, I'm not quite sure why you keep pretending that the only people impacted are the employees of one corporation. Dozens have sued for the same right HL sued - to deny coverage for contraceptives. This ruling is much broader than just HL and the other named plaintiffs. Surely this is obvious, right?

  2. #592
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,119

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    It shouldn't impact anyone, even hypothetically.
    So then move to America and work to get the RFRA overturned.

  3. #593
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,119

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    No, I don't know. Do you know how many women working for HL or the approximately half the working population in small, family owned firms who will be affected and who are part of the millions of working poor? Do you assume that number is positive?

    As an aside, I'm not quite sure why you keep pretending that the only people impacted are the employees of one corporation. Dozens have sued for the same right HL sued - to deny coverage for contraceptives. This ruling is much broader than just HL and the other named plaintiffs. Surely this is obvious, right?
    I have no idea how many people will not live well without those 4 specific forms of BC being provided in their employer-sponsored healthcare insurance plans. This is the first time I'm finding out that it's a crisis. Women have been paying out of pocket for them for decades before the ACA was passed.

    why don't you lobby your Congressman to overturn the RFRA? That's the law that made the SCOTUS decision end up being what it is. It seems to really bother you. It didn't bother me in 1993 and it doesn't bother me today. Birth control paid for by insurance? I have to admit, it isn't my biggest worry in my life.

  4. #594
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Do you not know about RFRA, which was the law that SCOTUS applied to this decision?

    I suggest some research on RFRA. It was signed into law by Clinton in 1993. Do you want to know the main reason RFRA came into being? It was to protect the Native Americans (remember - the people who had you all worked up last week, worrying about their rights and thoughts on that trademark thing?). RFRA was intended to keep the government from intruding on Native Americans' sacred land. Everyone from the ACLU to the Catholic Church supported RFRA.

    All of a sudden, Ginsburg - who was an ACLU attorney who supported RFRA - has an issue with its application. She launches into an hysterical hypothetical about gelatin, pigs, and transfusions. How realistic do you think it is that people will all of a sudden not get blood transfusions covered by their insurance? Good grief.

    HHS made a decision to force all employers to offer 20 forms of birth control to their employees in their insurance. HHS disregarded RFRA, and SCOTUS (the honest ones) upheld RFRA< which again was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

    So the ones who made up **** willy nilly were the dissenters, not the ones who ruled in favor of it. Ginsburg supported a law in 1993 that she chose to ignore in 2014.
    I don't think congress meant or intended the RFRA law to include corporate "personhood".


    The SCOTUS failed to prove how the ACA burdened or prevented the individual owners of HL from exercising their religion. Instead the SCOTUS seems to have singled out a group of people for corporations to discriminate against.

  5. #595
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,551
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    This is what Obama gets for trying to compromise. He should have gone with true Socialized Medicine, which would have avoided this situation.
    He did try, remember? He and other liberals wanted a single payer option but he couldn't get it past moderate Democrats.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  6. #596
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,751

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    How many of the HL employees are poor? How many demanded these 4 drugs? If there is no data on that, we're discussing something that neither one of us knows about.

    The requirement of providing abortion-causing birth control violated the RFRA which is a law that has existed since 1993. If that's a bad law, then change it. The ACLU was one of the biggest advocates of the RFRA when Clinton signed it into law in 1993. The decision was very black and white here.
    I think I'll quit going down the same rathole with you. If you want to respond to the points I made, then do so, but it's tiring as heck that you ask a question, I respond, you ignore the response, repeat the same question, or move the goal posts to something else. It's a not entertaining version of whack a mole.

    And the decision was hardly 'black and white.' It was 5-4, and the Appeals courts were split, which required the SC to rule to settle the conflict at the Appeals Court level. Legal experts have been debating the issue for months, with dozens of very sharp attorneys and groups submitting briefs on both sides of the issue. To get to the ruling the Court had to make about four conclusions in favor of the plaintiffs, and every one of them was in dispute, requiring subjective applications of the law and precedent to the facts of this case, and if any had fallen the other way, the ruling goes in favor of HHS. Furthermore, the limited nature of the ruling testifies to the gray area of law this ruling treads in. Were the issues clear, there would be ZERO reason to limit the effect of the ruling to this narrow set of facts, as Alito made great pains to do.

    You're not even trying to be objective with crap like that.

  7. #597
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,551
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Poor women working for HL would be covered by HL's insurance, as would be their dependents, some of them adults. They wouldn't have a Medicaid supplemental policy. It could be that for them and others denied coverage for religious reason that the regs for ACA will be changed to require insurers to offer contraceptives free of charge, but I read yesterday that some employers object to that arrangement, because they have to make a positive step to make that coverage available to their employees and they object to making that positive step.

    We'll see what happens, I guess, but I'm not sure what's hard about accepting that denying coverage for something by insurance has an effect on the 'access' to that denied product or service, especially by poor women. It's the whole point of these religious objections. If HL's denial of coverage in fact has no effect at all on contraceptive use or access, then they're expending an immense amount of effort on an empty gesture. It's possible that's all they're doing, but it seems completely irrational to me.
    Hobby Lobby isn't trying to deny contraceptives to everyone. They are surely aware that women will still get contraceptives whether they provide them or not. They just didn't want to be the ones providing them. That was the whole point; it's a religious objection. That doesn't make it an "empty gesture".

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  8. #598
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,751

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    I have no idea how many people will not live well without those 4 specific forms of BC being provided in their employer-sponsored healthcare insurance plans. This is the first time I'm finding out that it's a crisis. Women have been paying out of pocket for them for decades before the ACA was passed.

    why don't you lobby your Congressman to overturn the RFRA? That's the law that made the SCOTUS decision end up being what it is. It seems to really bother you. It didn't bother me in 1993 and it doesn't bother me today. Birth control paid for by insurance? I have to admit, it isn't my biggest worry in my life.
    I just have to laugh. You quote me saying this, "As an aside, I'm not quite sure why you keep pretending that the only people impacted are the employees of one corporation. Dozens have sued for the same right HL sued - to deny coverage for contraceptives. This ruling is much broader than just HL and the other named plaintiffs. Surely this is obvious, right?" and then right below it you repeat the same thing I've challenged you on several times now, which is pretending this ruling ONLY applies to HL and that ALL the other employers suing to not provide contraception will choose to provide for 16 and not zero.

    It's just amazing to watch the dishonest way you conduct a debate.

  9. #599
    Chews the Cud
    Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Benghazi
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,081

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    Hobby Lobby isn't trying to deny contraceptives to everyone. They are surely aware that women will still get contraceptives whether they provide them or not. They just didn't want to be the ones providing them. That was the whole point; it's a religious objection. That doesn't make it an "empty gesture".
    A bogus religious objection:


  10. #600
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,272

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    How many of the HL employees are poor?
    How many demanded these 4 drugs? If there is no data on that,
    we're discussing something that neither one of us knows about.
    The requirement of providing abortion-causing birth control violated the RFRA which is a law that has existed since 1993. If that's a bad law, then change it. The ACLU was one of the biggest advocates of the RFRA when Clinton signed it into law in 1993. The decision was very black and white here.
    I heard somewhere that HL pays double the minimum wage.
    It's a War On Women, doncha know.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •