Page 81 of 129 FirstFirst ... 3171798081828391 ... LastLast
Results 801 to 810 of 1290

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

  1. #801
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1

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

    Does anyone else find it hypocritical that Viagra is still covered?

  2. #802
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,807

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    Wrong. They would be forced to pay for abortifactants.
    We'll agree to disagree, but the same insurance they'll get from HL, will, through administrative rules issued by HHS, give those same employees the same access to those same abortifactants.

    No, the issue of whether religious objections should result in a waver hinge on whether the government has a compelling interest in implementing the law and whether they are using the least restrictive means reasonably possible. It's clear that the Court's problem with how HHS did things was that they had a less restrictive alternative available and didn't offer it to HL.
    The HL folks also had to demonstrate that the burden was substantial. The court addressed that point head on, and those who disagreed with the ruling, including the dissent, found differently. I see the other side, but that IS a major point of departure between the two groups on this issue.

  3. #803
    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 Grim17 View Post
    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.
    I disagree that it will be easy to interpret this ruling narrowly enough to avoid consequent undesirable rulings down the road. "Every religious kook" is quite a subjective term, and the SCOTUS will have to be very cautious what it labels as 'kooky', if it is to stand by its principles.

    Disclaimer: I seem to have to reiterate this over and over again when I make anything close to the above argument: Even with the undesirable consequences that I believe will come out of this ruling, I still believe the ruling is a good one. Sometimes freedom isn't free, and I think this will turn out to be a case of that. So please don't characterize my argument as being against this ruling or against religious freedom. Arguably, I am MORE principled regarding religious freedom than conservatives who want this ruling to be so narrow and unprincipled that it won't have any of the undesirable consequences that liberals have been saying it will have. Again, my argument is that the ruling will have SOME of the undesirable consequences liberals say it will have, and it is STILL as good ruling despite that.
    You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.

  4. #804
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,807

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    What's wrong with you?
    You better read your own link.
    It says what I said.
    HL's objection was specifically to abortifacients on religious grounds.
    Those other cases were also based on religious reasons and the SC sent them back for review given their ruling.
    If those companies can't make their case given the SC ruling they will fail ... if they can they will succeed ... that's as it should be, right?
    I actually don't know what your point is. The ruling clearly allows employers to state a moral objection against ALL contraception, and refuse to cover any of the option. This is clear FROM THE WORDING OF THE FINAL ORDER, and confirmed by the orders today. It covers the 'contraception mandate' not just abortifacients. If you agree, great, if not, read the rulings and the orders in that link.

  5. #805
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by americanwoman View Post
    So then we would both agree that both men and women should take caution, contraceptives really, to avoid unwanted pregnancies that result in the mistreatment of a child.

    btw, comparing a man not wanting to change diapers to a woman abusing a baby is kind of a stretch, or no?

    Don't know about the other men here but I had a lot of trouble breast feeding at night and couldn't seem to satisfy the baby's appetite. Other than that I had no problem changing diapers and helping my wife take care of the kids and in fact enjoyed it. Guess that is why I have such a good relationship with my kids todasy plus we have always accepted responsibility for our actions which is why we are conservative

  6. #806
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:08 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    Let's say you're an atheist who owns a business and employees a few thousand people. You don't limit your employees beliefs in any way and even provide a small room where employees can exercise their religious beliefs in a reasonable manner during regular, paid breaks. You think you're being plenty fair and amenable to your employees and your employees aren't complaining at all.

    Then, one day, a court case comes down that says you have to provide religious symbols and amenities for your employees. Now, you aren't opposed to employees bringing their own religious artifacts to use at work as long as they keep it private and limit their use to the designated break time but you're kind of bent out of shape by having to provide crucifixes, prayer mats, statuary, etc. The cost isn't really the issue but you're starting to feel like this might be an imposition on your religious freedom so you decide to sue the government.

    Finally, after spending a ****load of money and suffering much unwanted publicity you win your case. That day, however, someone comes in and says the decision is screwed and you're getting over on people...forcing your beliefs on them....because you refuse to provide them with the articles of their faith.
    This is the common strawman where the freedom to impose your religion on other people is conflated with the freedom to practice your religion.

    Women's health care is Health Care, not religion. Someone taking birth control is not practising their religious beliefs. Someone else may believe it's wrong to use birth control and choose to not to take it. Someone else may believe that taking medicine is immoral. But that doesn't mean that I'm committing a religious act by taking a Tylenol.

  7. #807
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,360

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Who are the "they" you refer to?

    You summed up the situation nicely.
    There just seems to be a a lot more chatter than necessary for a company
    saying they will not provide morning after pills as part of their insurance.
    It is not like Hobby Lobby is not covering traditional birth control methods.

  8. #808
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,560
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    No it's not at all. Catholics have a very restrictive, well known, well publicized view of contraception and sex. It's for procreation, period. And five MEN, with those personal religious views, decided to allow employers to restrict access to the contraception their religion tells them is sinful.

    I'm just stating the optics, particularly of FIVE MEN holding a decidedly minority view on contraception, deciding the healthcare needs of women, and on top of the GOP holding an all MALE panel on the contraceptive needs of WOMEN. If you can't see the optics look bad to women, then you're not paying attention. I can just tell you because I've read it 1,000 times that many women would just rather ignorant old men who have no clue about the healthcare needs of women keep their old man noses out of their lady parts business. Those old men don't have to live with the consequences. Disagree if you want, but that feeling is out there.
    It's the Democrats, the party of race, sex, and belief division, who care about such optics.

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

  9. #809
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,807

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    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.
    The problem is many pro-life people also believe many of those on that list of 16 are also abortifacients. In my area, there is widespread opposition to the pill in all its forms because the evangelicals, some of them at least, believe that can and do cause abortions in many cases. So I don't think they'd have avoided the controversy, just perhaps changed the names of the litigants. The court system is full of dozens of employers suing to deny coverage for ALL contraceptive options as well. Finally, there is just a factual disagreement about whether those 4 forms actually cause 'abortions.'

    So based on all that, I don't blame them for the decision. If they had contraceptive options greater than zero, they were sure to be the subject of intense opposition, lawsuits, etc. and so I think rationally decided to include the full list because that makes the most sense medically, and best achieves the desired outcome. IUDs are extremely effective, for example, at the very top of the list and long lasting.

    What they COULD have done is just accept the compromise offered by the House as I recall and give employers a "conscientious objection" out to any or all coverage. In retrospect, that was likely a mistake, although the compromise to the mandate is also being litigated, so even THAT wouldn't have cut off the debate, just blunted some of it.

  10. #810
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:08 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    I disagree that it will be easy to interpret this ruling narrowly enough to avoid consequent undesirable rulings down the road. "Every religious kook" is quite a subjective term, and the SCOTUS will have to be very cautious what it labels as 'kooky', if it is to stand by its principles.

    Disclaimer: I seem to have to reiterate this over and over again when I make anything close to the above argument: Even with the undesirable consequences that I believe will come out of this ruling, I still believe the ruling is a good one. Sometimes freedom isn't free, and I think this will turn out to be a case of that. So please don't characterize my argument as being against this ruling or against religious freedom. Arguably, I am MORE principled regarding religious freedom than conservatives who want this ruling to be so narrow and unprincipled that it won't have any of the undesirable consequences that liberals have been saying it will have. Again, my argument is that the ruling will have SOME of the undesirable consequences liberals say it will have, and it is STILL as good ruling despite that.
    Interesting.

    Does a religious belief need a certain number of believers before it "counts"? If other people don't share in your deeply held religious beliefs are they no longer important? What about taxes? Can you now opt out of paying for the portions of government you have a moral objection to? What's the legal distinction between women's reproductive health care and immunization, prescription drugs, or any other form of health care? What about someone who believed that all healthcare was an affront to god, should they be allowed to ban their employees from purchasing health care too?

    I think we all have to accept that this was a TERRIBLE ruling. The idea that something you own can avoid paying something for someone else which contributes to something which pays for something you don't like just because you own it is incredibly destructive to the legal system as a whole. I mean, in WV there are people who play with venomous snakes to prove their devotion to god. Is it really that hard to imagine a time in which theses same individuals believe that insurance in any form is immoral because god will provide? Is that actually a stretch?

Page 81 of 129 FirstFirst ... 3171798081828391 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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