Page 63 of 129 FirstFirst ... 1353616263646573113 ... LastLast
Results 621 to 630 of 1290

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

  1. #621
    dangerously addictive
    americanwoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,435

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    Contraceptives were included in coverage because the Administration considered them to be preventative care (as if pregnancy is a disease). That's where the legal authority to make contraceptives free came from since according to the ACA preventative care is supposed to be free. Viagra can in no way be considered preventative.
    So why is viagra covered and why is there no moral issue with it?
    I call my own shots, largely based on an accumulation of data, and everyone knows it.
    _____________________________________________

  2. #622
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,566
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by americanwoman View Post
    So you will respect a Muslim or Wiccan CEO's religious beliefs when it comes to the workplace and what is religious objections in their religion?
    Yeah, but, as has always been done, within reasonable limits.

    You guys act as if the issue of balancing religious rights with other legal rights has never come up before. But we have a very long and well established legal tradition in that regard.

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

  3. #623
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:10 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,472

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    And a bogus retort on your part. Religious objections are what religious people say they are. Unbelievers don't and can't understand.
    Do you think for-profit corporations hold and practice religious beliefs?

  4. #624
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by americanwoman View Post
    So why is viagra covered and why is there no moral issue with it?
    To be fair, I'd argue that it shouldn't be covered either.

    However, if one were to make the argument in favor of it, I suppose you could say that Viagra is meant to treat a legitimate medical condition. Birth control really does not.

  5. #625
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,834

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    No this has nothing at all to do with any imagined hardship for anyone. What this is about is the left being butthurt over being slapped down by SCOTUS once again. Again and again the Administration has tried to enact their far left wing policies by over-reaching their authority only to get slapped down by the court. It seems to be a pattern with them. They want so much to be tyrants and to be able to run everything by their own whims that they are forgetting to wait for the day when they have that kind of power. And it's not like they lost on anything that's even significant, it's just that they are in a narcissistic rage about not getting 100% of what they wanted.

    As for not being able to get 4 kinds of contraceptives out of over 2 dozen different kinds of contraceptives, this is next to meaningless. It will affect no one. It will cause no one any hardship, and it will have almost no effect on the ACA.
    I am worried that my posts aren't readable. I've made the same point about 10 times now that the ruling applies to more than HL and there is nothing in the ruling that requires any employer to cover 1 or 4 or 16 or any of the available contraceptive options, but you guys keep repeating that as if it's gospel. It's weird. Maybe I should contact a moderator to see if they're blocking out part of my responses.....

    It does, at least, mean that the government can't run roughshod over people's religious beliefs. Again, this is something the left dearly wanted to be able to do, not for any practical reason but just because they hate religious people so much, which is why they insisted on going to the mat over this.
    There are practical, medical reasons for covering contraceptives as part of a standard comprehensive medical insurance package. They're well documented, you can read the reasons for their inclusion in dozens of places.

    Sure, there's a political element to this entire battle, on both sides.

    And there is an element of 'running roughshod' over beliefs on both sides as well. I see the point that the owners of HL have the 'right' to impose their religious views about contraception on all their employees, and other employers will deny contraception of any kind through the insurance plan, but you can't deny that's a few owners 'running roughshod' over the medical decisions between women and their doctors, otherwise fully covered by insurance. The employers are sticking their noses into this process and saying, "If you decide this, insurance will pay, if you decide these other ways, insurance will not pay because it conflicts with OUR, not your, religious views." Again, saying the person with the gold makes the rules is fine and I see it, but it's still undeniable one party imposing views on thousands of others.

  6. #626
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by americanwoman View Post
    So why is viagra covered and why is there no moral issue with it?
    You're claiming viagra is covered as a contraceptive in the SCOTUS decision?
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  7. #627
    Guru
    HenryChinaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Chitown
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    3,538

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    You answer mine first. But you won't I gather.
    Let's be clear about this and what this is. Hobby Lobby will NOT provide coverage for a Woman who chooses when she want's to become pregnant. But they WILL provide coverage for men who can't get a boner and need some lead in the pencil. And they WILL provide coverage for male employees who decide that THEY wan't to control a woman's pregnancy.
    Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he can sit in a boat, drinking beer all day while you fool around with his Woman.

  8. #628
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Seen
    01-12-16 @ 01:33 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    260

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by HenryChinaski View Post
    Let's be clear about this and what this is. Hobby Lobby will NOT provide coverage for a Woman who chooses when she want's to become pregnant. But they WILL provide coverage for men who can't get a boner and need some lead in the pencil. And they WILL provide coverage for male employees who decide that THEY wan't to control a woman's pregnancy.
    men who want to control a woman's pregnancy?

    where did that come form?

  9. #629
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by HenryChinaski View Post
    Let's be clear about this and what this is. Hobby Lobby will NOT provide coverage for a Woman who chooses when she want's to become pregnant. But they WILL provide coverage for men who can't get a boner and need some lead in the pencil. And they WILL provide coverage for male employees who decide that THEY wan't to control a woman's pregnancy.
    First establish a foundation: Where in the SCOTUS decision was viagra identified?
    Second: HL will cover the majority of contraceptives as provided by the FDA, but objected to four.

    So instead of your manipulating statement meant to deceive - the truth is HL will provide contraceptives and pay for those contraceptives for their female employees. They will NOT pay for items they see as drugs which provide an early abortion. Those items their female employees will have to pay for themselves or will need to procure elsewhere.

    Clear?


    And speaking of vagina's, why is it that liberals are so ill informed and so worried about what goes in and or out of women's vaginas and why is it that the government must be involved with women's vaginas? It's very strange.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  10. #630
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,834

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    It is often in the nature of religious ideas to be hard for unbelievers to understand. Four contraceptives might not seem like much of anything, and from a practical standpoint it's not, but for the religious it can be a distinction with tons of meaning.

    It might not be in your nature to respect religious beliefs, but for legal purposes respect for religious beliefs is mandatory.
    I do respect religious beliefs. I said earlier the better option would have been for the Senate to approve the House 'compromise' which would have allowed what HL got out of the ruling, but many religious employers objected even to that compromise, so I'm not even sure if that would have prevented the uproar we saw, instead of just changed the battle lines.

    Frankly, the more principled stance IMO is being taken by employers who don't want to agree to file the statement that makes the contraceptives available through the mechanism recognized by the Court. I think those employers (Catholic employers that I've seen) recognize that if they file the paper, and the same insurer provides the same drugs/devices they object to, to the same employees, for no charge, they've enabled access to the type of abortifacients (in their view) that they're objecting to, and so don't want to sign the form.

Posting Permissions

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