Page 78 of 129 FirstFirst ... 2868767778798088128 ... LastLast
Results 771 to 780 of 1290

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

  1. #771
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,247

    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.

    HL objected to coverage for abortifacients, not contraceptives, they won the case. You're playing word games.
    You're wrong once again ... any company that can show they qualify, as did HL, should not be forced to cover something they object to on religious grounds, as does HL. Don't play word games.
    There's probably many things poor people can't get because they can't afford it. Actual healthcare isn't one of them.

  2. #772
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,720

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  3. #773
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    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.
    That's likely true, although we don't really know the impact yet. The remedy the court suggested was, essentially, "Let taxpayers fund the mandate" then compared the unknown cost to $1.2 trillion and concluded the cost would be no real concern. But pretty much any amount over 1.2T is small, so what kind of solutions would meet the 'least restrictive' if the alternative is the Feds pick up some number that is small in relation to $1.2T? Not sure. We'll see.

    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.
    That's true, and if the Court rules such accommodations legal - they're being challenged by religious groups who refuse to facilitate the accommodation - then HL and other affected women will see little effect. But this isn't a done deal till it survives court challenges.

    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.
    This isn't a big part of the discussion, but Planned Parenthood is under a blistering attack by the same groups fighting for the right of employers to deny contraceptive coverage, and Medicaid just isn't available to most poor women in most states until they have a child, often after an unplanned pregnancy. So those solutions are partial at best and under attack from the religious right wing.

    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.
    I find it a bit odd that to dismiss concerns about the impact of the ruling, you're having to claim that it will have no actual impact on anyone. Like I said above, if true then we're fighting over the ability of a few employers to engage in what is in practice an empty gesture, to 'deny' coverage for abortifacients, then take positive steps to make those same drugs available to the same women for free, from the same insurer who's handling the company plan. Like I mentioned, the lawsuits challenging the accommodation make this assumption unclear at the moment and perhaps it will be proven false.

    I do agree some of the reaction by liberals/leftists to the ruling are overblown, but if that's true then so is the concern by right wingers over some employers' objections to contraceptives. But, hey, if the HL women just get coverage through taxpayers instead of HL, and that's the entire effect of this ruling, I'm OK with it. Frankly I'd do away with employer insurance altogether in part for just this reason, but if the result works, then OK. But I'm not at all sure that's a fair assumption at this point.

    BTW, part of this is definitely optics and politics, but the right wing has done itself no favors so far. The all male hearing on the mandate for contraception for women was a telling example, and five old male Catholics issuing an extremely narrow ruling, against 3 women and a Jew on the other side, doesn't help the optics either, and comments like many in this thread that treat preventing pregnancy as somehow not a legitimate medical need for women is just piling on.

  4. #774
    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
    Narrow ruling and liberal theatrics. That sums up this issue.
    A ruling cannot be so narrow that it violates the idea of having some kind of principle. If rulings are to be without principle, then it is simply the caprice of the Judges. "This ruling only applies to Christians of a mainstream belief set" simply doesn't cut it.

    The response Lowdown gave from the conservative perspective, and quoted in the post above this one, is a far more intelligent conservative view than your own about how the ruling might be limited. And it has some implications which might mitigate what I have been saying.
    Last edited by Dezaad; 07-01-14 at 03:56 PM.
    You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.

  5. #775
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,247

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    I'm guessing DMS will be the first.
    Curiously enough, a picture of DWS has been shown to be a very cheap yet very effective method of birth control.
    And I bet it would withstand judicial scrutiny on religious grounds.
    But there's still that cruel and unusual thing to consider.


  6. #776
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,629

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by shagg View Post
    The ACA is a poor excuse for wanting to push the religious beliefs and morals of the employer onto the employee. I could just as easily say this is employers, bitter over being legally required to assist in their employees healthcare, shamelessly using their beliefs to fight a battle they've lost countless times. And because freedom of religion is one the founding principles of this country, SCOTUS doesn't want to just say "too bad" and steamroll them.

    Why are vasectomies covered? they provide nothing but the risk associated with any procedure and the ability to have sex without risk of conception(or incredibly low risk, like most birth control methods). Sex is supposed to be strictly for reproduction right? Why no moral obligation to make it more difficult for non believers to have risk free sinful intercourse?
    Let's try this again.

    No employer is trying to push their religious beliefs on anyone.

    The ACA MANDATED certain medical coverage and, as such, infringed on the religious liberty of certain employers who fought against that infringement and won.

  7. #777
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    HL objected to coverage for abortifacients, not contraceptives, they won the case. You're playing word games.
    You're wrong once again ... any company that can show they qualify, as did HL, should not be forced to cover something they object to on religious grounds, as does HL. Don't play word games.
    There's probably many things poor people can't get because they can't afford it. Actual healthcare isn't one of them.
    I'm not sure what word games you're talking about. The SC has already approved six orders that have the effect of allowing companies to deny coverage of ALL forms of contraception, not just abortifacients. You can read about them here: Wider impact of Hobby Lobby ruling? : SCOTUSblog

    And if you think the poor aren't priced out of "actual healthcare," you should get out more and actually maybe talk to a poor person every now and then?

  8. #778
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    The odds are that the healthcare package in question is worth well more than your objective value to the company already, which is why there is no reason to go jacking up the prices paid by employers on unnecessary luxuries.
    Nonsense. A healthy employee is a productive and happy employee and don't cost nearly as much as someone who can't control their alcohol or bad eating habits or bad driving habits.

    Christ, what's next? Employer mandated plastic surgery?
    Some employers do require health exams and drug testing which is understandable. But they don't have a right to decide what the best remedy for your personal health problems are. If a doctor says an IUD is the best remedy for a woman who can't take hormonal drugs to prevent pregnancy then who is the employer to say otherwise? Who are you to judge a woman who might die if she gets pregnant and needs to prevent getting pregnant from her husband? Why is that even your business at all?



    Do whatever you want. Just don't expect anyone else to foot the bill. I fail to see how this is difficult concept.
    Likewise on your vasectomy and Viagra.


    The simple fact of the matter is that there are means of avoiding pregnancy out there which do not cost a dime. You simply desire the luxury of not having to make use of them.
    They aren't very reliable methods.

    Furthermore, yes, what you're advocating here does ultimately come down to "sexual liberation." You are basically saying that is your employer's responsibility to ensure that you are able to have sex without risking pregnancy.
    Actually, I think you are suggesting that married men should abstain from sex unless it's to get their wife pregnant. Unless you want the employers to pay for the man's sex life outside the marriage and run the risk of getting STDs and passing it on to his wife and children. That would be quite a burden on the employers bottom line too, don't cha think?

    They are "entitled" to do so only on their own dime. You do not have the right to demand that anyone else pay for it.
    Isn't that the point of having "insurance"?



    It is mandated by law.
    The private market likes it that way.

    Realistically speaking, very few employees actually put in the productivity necessary to legitimately "earn" it.
    Business and labor are a two way street and work best when there is an equilibrium. Currently, the equilibrium is out of balance.

  9. #779
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    Realistically speaking, very few employees actually put in the productivity necessary to legitimately "earn" it.
    I love it - contempt for working people on full display! Beautiful.

  10. #780
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,117
    Blog Entries
    20

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    I chose not to comment on this decision right out of the box, and instead decided to read the decision, sleep on it and let the dust settle. Well, the dust has settled, so...

    I agree that the religious rights of closely held companies like Hobby Lobby should be respected, when those religious beliefs are part of a companies charter, well established and woven into the fabric of the company. This does not mean that every religious kook has the right to claim everything is against their religion just to save a buck.

    In this case I agree with the Supreme courts decision because I believe Hobby Lobby's objection to those 4 drugs in question is valid, and even if I didn't think it violated their religious beliefs, I still think they should have won. Let me put it this way... It's not so much that I think Hobby Lobby should have won the case, but more a belief that HHS and the Administration should have lost. I don't say that from a "Repeal Obamacare" perspective, it's based on principal and accountability.

    Remember the heated debate about whether abortion would be included in Obamacare? Obama stated quite clearly while campaigning for the passage of Obamacare that it would not cover abortions, because he knew that if it did, it would cause a firestorm of public outrage and stop Obamacare in it's tracks. So what does HHS turn around and do? They include 4 contraceptive types in Obamacare that HHS acknowledges don't prevent conception, but instead destroy a potentially fertilized egg after conception...

    What was Sebelius thinking?

    I'm sorry, but HHS should have been content with the 16 preventative types of birth control and never included those other 4 in the first place. This is either another example of this administrations incompetence, or a demonstration of their arrogance. Either way, as far as people of faith and the pro-life movement are concerned, the inclusion of those 4 types of contraceptives in Obamacare was in effect an end-around by the Administration.

    In my opinion, I think HHS should have just removed those 4 contraceptives from their mandatory contraceptive coverage as soon as the Hobby Lobby case built up steam, instead of stubbornly sticking to their agenda and causing all this controversy and mess. Since HHS and the Obama Administration weren't smart enough, or respectful enough of religious rights to do that, they fully deserved to lose this case.


    There is one other thing I'd like say about this... The court decision does not diminish the availability of contraceptive products, prevent anyone from obtaining contraceptive products, nor did it have the potential to do either of those things from the outset.... Therefore it needs to be pointed out in no uncertain terms, that the SCOTUS decision yesterday does NOT violate women's rights, does NOT in any way effect women's rights, and from the very beginning NEVER had a damned thing to do with women's rights... Anyone who says this is a womens rights issue is doing so purely in the name of partisan politics in order to advance their liberal agenda.

Posting Permissions

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