Page 76 of 129 FirstFirst ... 2666747576777886126 ... LastLast
Results 751 to 760 of 1290

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

  1. #751
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,704

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    So does that religious group that doesn't do doctors get to skip health insurance completely since they believe god should decide who lives and dies?
    No.

    The ruling is pretty clear that it only applies to the contraceptive mandate. Did you happen to read the ruling?

  2. #752
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,573
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    No, it didn't deal with abortifacients. Read the opinion. It dealt with contraception. And any company that wants to deny coverage for any/all of the options can do so under the HL ruling.

    And no, poor women can't get what they can't afford. If you don't care, fine, but you can't pretend not paying for something that can easily run $1,000 a year for some options has no effect on access to that drug/device.
    A number of people have posted to the effect that this ruling opens all sorts of doors for business leaders to deny employees various things on the basis of religious beliefs. But the ruling says clearly that business leaders won't be able to do that in cases where the government has a compelling interest in enforcement of a provision of the law despite religious objections as long as the law is the least restrictive on religious practice possible. That forecloses the possiblity of many of the horribles raised by left wingers.

    In addition, the court also said that people who work for businesses that object to contraceptives can get contraceptives from the government through a plan set up by HHS for non-profit religious organizations.

    Poor women will get contraception from where they have always gotten it -- planned parenthood and other similar organizations. Or they should be able to get it through Medicaid in which case employment doesn't matter.

    Left wingers have a hard time explaining why this ruling is such a bad thing without lying about it or distorting it. It doesn't deny anyone any rights. It in all likelyhood won't cost anyone anything. It won't have much of an effect on the ACA. It will only affect employees of closely held corporations in which the owners are a small, homogenous group with shared religious beliefs and who all object to paying for certain medical expenses. I seriously doubt that all religious objections will be a slam dunk, either. Jehovah's Witnesses might object to blood transfusions but I'm betting that they won't be able to refuse to pay for them through employee insurance because the government will claim a compelling interest in keeping people alive in the case of accidents, etc., without unduly burdening hospitals with the expense of transfusions that the accident victim can't pay for.

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

  3. #753
    Wading Through Bull****
    shagg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,500

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    No.

    The ruling is pretty clear that it only applies to the contraceptive mandate. Did you happen to read the ruling?
    It's not a very big stretch to get from this ruling to there though. Refusal of an employer to contribute to/offer benefits which can only be used for something against their religious beliefs.
    Could It Be Semantics Generating This Mess We're In?

  4. #754
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,704

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by shagg View Post
    It's not a very big stretch to get from this ruling to there though. Refusal of an employer to contribute to/offer benefits which can only be used for something against their religious beliefs.
    You need to keep in mind that this whole issue stems from a government mandate that employers provide not only a wage but certain other benefits to their employees. That was a HUGE overreach of federal authority. What this current ruling does is merely claw back a thin slice of of individual liberty.

  5. #755
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I already pointed it out. Aside from the fact that this isn't any mainstream religious belief we're talking about, there is no religious directive from God to the effect of "Thou shalt not pay for modern medical treatment". The belief that using doctors demonstrates a lack of faith isn't equivalent to a conflict of conscience regarding providing medical care for others. You aren't responsible for their faith. The argument wont' fly. With abortion drugs, you are complicit in murder. The difference is not slight. It's great gulf that can't be bridged with specious arguments.
    That is YOUR interpretation of scripture. Are you seriously advocating that the SCOTUS ought to decide what is valid scripture interpretation, and that which is not? Based on popularity of the interpretation?
    You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.

  6. #756
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,573
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    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.
    The Court's point about access to free contraceptives was that there are ways to provide free contraceptives that don't step on religious toes. But HHS insisted on stepping on religious toes because, well, because they thought they could do it, I guess.

    The state may have a compelling interest in providing free contraceptives as you imply, but they have to avoid quashing religious beliefs as much as possible. HHS had already set up an acceptable alternative for religious non-profits, i.e., employees get their contraceptives directly from HHS, but refused to set up such as system for Hobby Lobby.

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

  7. #757
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    As has already been pointed out, Viagra generally requires a co-pay. It is not "free."
    If the insurance is earned and/or paid for by the employee then it's not free.



    It does not require preventing, on either medical or practical grounds in the vast majority of cases. Some women simply happen to desire it.
    If the desire is to have a better life or even to have a life...then yes, pregnancy often does require preventing. But family planning isn't your problem....but the sexual habits of others apparently is.


    I'm not making anything "personal."
    Your quotes say otherwise.....
    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    ..... your sexual habits..
    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    ...So pay for it yourself....
    Your unnecessary sex pills....
    You've already told us what you're after point blank. You want "sexual liberation" for women with someone else footing the bill.
    if you're going to quote me at least be honest about it....
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    .....For the vast majority of women birth control is the very essence of liberty and the great societal equalizer. Birth control allows women to participate equally in the economy and society. It gives them control over their own lives and destiny...aka 'individual liberty'.

    "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." - Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992)
    .....
    I didn't realize that "participating in the economy and social life of the Nation" aka known as working and having a job was considered "sexual liberation" but I can see how some men might see it that way.


    I'm sorry, but you're simply not entitled to that.
    Not entitled to what? Not entitled to earn a living or not entitled to plan a family? Women are entitled to that and if you can't handle it then that really is your problem.


    How are you "paying for your own health insurance" your employer pays your medical bills for you?
    If you must know our health insurance pays for most our medical expenses.

    Are they not already paying you an honest wage or salary?
    Health insurance is part of the employers payment package. We earn it.

    Every additional expense beyond that only cuts into their bottom line more.
    Everyone's got a bottom line.

  8. #758
    Wading Through Bull****
    shagg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,500

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    You need to keep in mind that this whole issue stems from a government mandate that employers provide not only a wage but certain other benefits to their employees. That was a HUGE overreach of federal authority. What this current ruling does is merely claw back a thin slice of of individual liberty.
    I suppose its a matter of perspective I guess. To some of us, this is just an opportunity for employers to push their religion on their non religious employees. Essentially, god says you shouldn't be doing this anyway, so we're not paying for it. What the employee believes doesn't matter. That's whats wrong with the whole thing. Its up to the individual to follow the teachings of whatever religion they choose to follow, not attempt to force others to do so, through financial pressure, slut shaming, or whatever other means. One is supposed to voluntarily subjects ones self to the rules/morals/teachings/etc of a given religion. They shouldn't be financially pressured into it any more than they should be physically pressured into it. The fact that vasectomies are still covered puts the lie to this pile of hypocrisy.
    Could It Be Semantics Generating This Mess We're In?

  9. #759
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    That is YOUR interpretation of scripture. Are you seriously advocating that the SCOTUS ought to decide what is valid scripture interpretation, and that which is not? Based on popularity of the interpretation?
    The belief must be sincere and I think the sincerity of specious claims can be effectively challenged, but we'd have to wait until someone tried to run with such a specious argument in court and I don't think that's going to happen. I doubt you do, either.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  10. #760
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    It's even a smaller benefit than that. It will benefit only those closely held corps, which also have similar religious beliefs regarding some contraceptives. And this has nothing to do with the employees beliefs but the closely held corporation's beliefs. I would think religious freedom for chanting or praying is already settled law as part of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.




    It's actually the first paragraph of the Syllabus in the HL court case. Here's the link:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...3-354_olp1.pdf
    90% of the companies in the US are "closely held". This ruling opened up a can of worms.

    Will the government be able to regulate for profit businesses who claim religious exemption or will that be considered "unconstitutional" as per the first amendment?

Posting Permissions

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