Page 74 of 129 FirstFirst ... 2464727374757684124 ... LastLast
Results 731 to 740 of 1290

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

  1. #731
    Sage
    gdgyva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Twinsburg Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    5,942

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    It gives someone / something with religion the decision-making power over those who might be a follower of a different religion or even someone who is non-religious. Sure, HL can practice their beliefs, no one is forcing them to take BC (last I checked ). But, how is it in their right to tell someone else they cannot because it will not be paid for?
    a. you have the choice to work for hobby lobby or not to work for them
    b. you have the choice if you do work for them, to pay for those 4 drugs yourself
    c. all others forms of birth control are covered, and will continue to be covered

    am i wrong on any point?

    does a company have to provide what (you) want, or what they think is right? in this case, because they are basically a family held company, they can assert their religious beliefs into their decisions

    it in no way, precludes anyone on their payroll from obtaining those 4 disqualified meds themselves, out of their own pocket
    “Most of the shadows of this life are caused by standing in one's own sunshine.”

    Ralph Waldo Emerson

  2. #732
    dangerously addictive
    americanwoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,412

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Why would men fight against birth control, thereby allowing sex without responsibility, when it's been the greatest thing that's happened for men in their social history?

    That is exactly what I am wondering.
    I call my own shots, largely based on an accumulation of data, and everyone knows it.
    _____________________________________________

  3. #733
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by americanwoman View Post
    That is exactly what I am wondering.
    Which men are you referring to then?

  4. #734
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,619

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    That's not true at all. The court ruled on a set of facts, but the ruling is much broader than the narrow set of facts before it. They don't waste their time resolving issue of which of 20 options must be covered, and in fact conceded that covering all options serves a legitimate purpose. So HL or any of the dozens of others suing, and the thousands or 10s of thousands of other small businesses, could decide to cover 1 or 4 or zero or 19 of the available options and the ruling says that is OK.
    Actually no, the court ruling was VERY narrow on 'closely held companies' and the two drugs HL considered abortion causing as opposed to the others that are simple blockers.

  5. #735
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,730

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    There is a tendency of left wingers to conflate the issue of access to contraceptives with free contraceptives. The former was never in doubt, the latter was never in doubt for the vast majority of women and still isn't, at least by the provisions in the ACA.

    People take their religions seriously.
    The point was there were and are good reasons to make access to contraceptives 'free,' (although these women work for their benefits, same way they work for all the other health benefits they earn on the job) same as routine medical visits, wellness visits. Instead of addressing them, you pretend they don't exist and assert that including them for 'free' in medical plans was some kind of liberal plot to anger religious conservatives. There is a ton of research on copays and what if finds is even small ones have significant effects on use, which is why the last two plans I've been in cover (pre-ACA) routine physicals for 'free' - that eliminates a big obstacle to people getting them, and insurers WANT patients to get an annual physical. The medical community WANTED women to have the easiest possible access to contraception to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

    And, yes, people take religion seriously, and people take health issues seriously. There is a conflict between them in this case, not the biggest one of all time, but important enough for the SC to concede the state had a compelling interest to provide access for free, and to rule in favor of HL in large part because this important issue could be resolved without the employer mandate on that one narrow part of the ACA baseline package.

  6. #736
    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
    What birth control methods cause abortion?
    Quote Originally Posted by Supreme Court Brief
    “Four of the twenty approved methods —two types of intrauterine devices (IUDs) and the emergency contraceptives commonly known as Plan B and Ella
    —can function by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg.” 2 Pet.App.10a.This requirement to cover FDA-approved drugs and devicesis the contraceptive-
    coverage mandate at issue here."
    http://www.hobbylobbycase.com/wp-con...f-Feb-2014.pdf
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d 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. #737
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,619

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    I may have been a bit hasty in reading your original post. My apologies. In any case, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to covering BC as a form of hormone therapy, or if a woman's health could legitimately be shown to be poor enough to warrant it. Otherwise, however, I'd argue that the responsibility falls upon the woman to pay for her own treatment.
    Well as several women have pointed out- the BC methods are not 'free', these women have a co-pay like most every other drug covered by insurance. A friend of mine gets allergy meds on his insurance for the family and there is a co-pay. There is no threshold of need for that, many (too damn many IMO) get pain killers routinely under insurance and there is no need to show 'legitimately' the need for such- it is at the Doctor's discretion....

    I'd say the threshold for 'legitimately be shown' is as prescribed by doctor- be it BC, Lortab, or Viagra...

  8. #738
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    Which is exactly why men have to pay out of pocket for Viagra and other ED meds if they want them. They simply are not "necessary" medical expenses.
    Weren't you the one that just said that ED was a "legitimate dysfunction"? The ACA covers vasectomies and Viagra. But of course you're free to pay for it yourself.

    Regardless, however, the fact of the matter remains that it makes far more sense to treat ED as a "disease" than pregnancy. ED actually tends to legitimately indicate that there is something wrong with a person's body.
    Pregnancy isn't a "disease" but it is a condition that requires medical care and it can be prevented with prescription drugs.

    It's not an employer's, or the state's, duty to subsidize your sexual habits.
    I suggest you stop trying to make this personal.

    I hold to that much on general principle alone. It simply adds additional burden to an already overtaxed and overextended system
    Too bad employers have to be involved in the health insurance business at all. But they are, so almost everyone who works for an employer is paying for their own health insurance. That basic fact seems to elude you.

  9. #739
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,730

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Actually no, the court ruling was VERY narrow on 'closely held companies' and the two drugs HL considered abortion causing as opposed to the others that are simple blockers.
    I read the opinion and you're wrong about that. Here's the final order: "The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA."

    They didn't say, the contraceptive mandate for drugs, X, Y, Z and A violates RFRA.

  10. #740
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    I agree, however that doesn't preclude the employer from paying for it. Obamacare actually put HL in the middle of a woman and her doctor by requiring HL to pay for it. I'd agree that no employer should have to pay for ANY birth control - thereby preserving the doctor patient relationship and employers can stay 100% out of it.
    The employees earn their health insurance and companies that provide it get huge tax subsidies.

    I fail to see how the courts decision benefitted anyone except business owners. Can employees just start praying and chanting during business hours if they feel the spirit in them...or will they get fired?

Posting Permissions

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