• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

ludin said:
nothing in this ruling stops them from getting it but please continue the strawman.
Click to expand...

I never said that, but please make up your own strawman. What I was pointing out is there are many types of contraception not 'readily accessible' to some women, especially poor women. Can they buy condoms with a high failure rate? Yes. Can they afford the $1,000 for an IUD and more for the doctor visit? Not if they're poor.

The cost of birth control: By the numbers - The Week

And there are many good reasons to include contraception as part of health insurance. Same reason there are good reasons to include pills for high blood pressure as part of health insurance, or drugs for high cholesterol, etc. I pointed some out, which ones do you disagree with?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

VanceMack said:
do you hear yourself?
Click to expand...

Yes Vance I can hear you gnashing your teeth and stomping your feet. Surprised it took you so long. Just keep your religion out of my government.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Perotista said:
This ruling applies to close hold companies or family owned companies, not those that are publicly traded.
Click to expand...

The court says it does apply to closely held corporations but it does not say that the ruling does NOT or cannot apply to publicly held corps, only that it's less likely and none have made a claim so far. But what if a Saudi buys 50.01% of a public company? Can they make a claim based on Sharia? Who knows, but there is nothing in the ruling preventing such a claim under RFRA.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Top Cat said:
Yes Vance I can hear you gnashing your teeth and stomping your feet. Surprised it took you so long. Just keep your religion out of my government.
Click to expand...

And keep the government out of religion.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Grant said:
And keep the government out of religion.
Click to expand...

That works. I don't want Sharia.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Top Cat said:
Yes Vance I can hear you gnashing your teeth and stomping your feet. Surprised it took you so long. Just keep your religion out of my government.
Click to expand...
:lamo

Sad debate tactic is sad.

The religion isn't meddling with government. Only a fool would see it that way.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

VanceMack said:
:lamo

Sad debate tactic is sad.

The religion isn't meddling with government. Only a fool would see it that way.
Click to expand...

The only fool is the one that wants companies to be able to deny legitimate benefits in the name of a fairy tale.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Top Cat said:
That works. I don't want Sharia.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Only those with power and those who enjoy power want control over other people's lives.

Religion and government are very similar that way.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Top Cat said:
The only fool is the one that wants companies to be able to deny legitimate benefits in the name of a fairy tale.
Click to expand...

What 'legitimate benefits' are you talking about?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Top Cat said:
The only fool is the one that wants companies to be able to deny legitimate benefits in the name of a fairy tale.
Click to expand...

:lamo You just have your panties twisted because they dared defy the government and your cause.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

VanceMack said:
:lamo You just have your panties twisted because they dared defy the government and your cause.
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less about the government per se. I just don't cotton to people who want me to live by their religious mores.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Top Cat said:
I couldn't care less about the government per se. I just don't cotton to people who want me to live by their religious mores.
Click to expand...
And no one is. Your argument is goofy beyond words.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

VanceMack said:
And no one is. Your argument is goofy beyond words.
Click to expand...

Let's make **** up shall we Vance?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Top Cat said:
Let's make **** up shall we Vance?
Click to expand...
You have been doing a great job of it...keep going. Religion isnt meddling in government. You are making a goofy argument. Religion isnt meddling in your life. You are making a goofy argument. I'd bet money that without googling it right now you dont even know what is being considered. You cant even answer Grants question of you without an open book and at least 2 instructor assists. Hell, I'd bet you are one of those guys that believe Sandra Fluke was denied contraceptives.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Is anyone else a bit surprised that the second largest privately held company in the US is Koch Industries?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

VanceMack said:
You have been doing a great job of it...keep going. Religion isnt meddling in government. /QUOTE]

Like I said, let's make **** up now shall we?
Click to expand...
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

poweRob said:
Or you could try to find out why your boys refuse to rule on precedent and instead just fabricates one time bias laws from the bench. Then you can actually begin to understand how a nation of laws is supposed to work and therefore learn what is and isn't unconstitutional instead of doing these throw-away non sequiturs.
Click to expand...

They're not "my boys" - but if you want to talk about whose "boys" did what, presuming no female members of congress were involved, you might want to ask why the Democrat who ran the entire ACA show weren't up front when the legislation was being drafted and passed with their desire to fully fund all forms of contraceptives and abortive drugs? You think it might have had something to do with a lot of pro-life Democrats not supporting the bill if they did? I think so.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Montecresto said:
Well, let Navy Pride tell it and the other five ruled by their religious convictions not the constitution.
Click to expand...

Could be, but I doubt it - otherwise, they'd be looking for opportunities to trash Roe v Wade and they've basically always supported it.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:
The court says it does apply to closely held corporations but it does not say that the ruling does NOT or cannot apply to publicly held corps, only that it's less likely and none have made a claim so far. But what if a Saudi buys 50.01% of a public company? Can they make a claim based on Sharia? Who knows, but there is nothing in the ruling preventing such a claim under RFRA.
Click to expand...

Any claim that they would make based upon Sharia would have to be in regards to what they would provide or do, but not what an employee could do outside the workplace. So they could make women who worked in their company wear burkas while on the job but they could not enforce that rule outside of the workplace. The same principle is what is being applied to HL. HL is not going to provide what they do not religiously support, but they aren't even trying to stop women from getting what they want on their own.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Perotista said:
Perhaps as I said, what we are going on is what each one of us heard, Ginsburg may be on to something or she just might be hyperboling a descending point of view. Time will tell. But the first amendment is pretty specific:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Perhaps the SCOTUS will have to rule on exactly prohibiting the free exercise thereof and what exactly is free exercise thereof.

You got me.
Click to expand...

Actually the ruling wasn't even based on the First Amendment. It was based on RFRA, which was signed into law by Clinton in 1993.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

poweRob said:
As I posted to another person earlier, Ginsburg's dissent expresses my fear of establishment of religion in this case...

"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."​

The scotus has fabricated a precedent where all the lower courts are now supposed to be bound by in future rulings regarding religion opting out of law... for whatever religious reason. If the scotus and the lower courts do not rule consistently on this from religion to religion regardless of any bias that that religion claims that they can now bring to the fore... then the courts are making an establishment of religion.

It's a pick your poison situation now. Either stand by this ruling and consistently let any religious discrimination trump law, or have the courts ignore this precedent and just make **** up willy nilly... which has the side effect of saying it only applies to the one religion... violating the establishment clause.

Either way sucks terribly and both ways can arguably be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Do you not know about RFRA, which was the law that SCOTUS applied to this decision?

I suggest some research on RFRA. It was signed into law by Clinton in 1993. Do you want to know the main reason RFRA came into being? It was to protect the Native Americans (remember - the people who had you all worked up last week, worrying about their rights and thoughts on that trademark thing?). RFRA was intended to keep the government from intruding on Native Americans' sacred land. Everyone from the ACLU to the Catholic Church supported RFRA.

All of a sudden, Ginsburg - who was an ACLU attorney who supported RFRA - has an issue with its application. She launches into an hysterical hypothetical about gelatin, pigs, and transfusions. How realistic do you think it is that people will all of a sudden not get blood transfusions covered by their insurance? Good grief.

HHS made a decision to force all employers to offer 20 forms of birth control to their employees in their insurance. HHS disregarded RFRA, and SCOTUS (the honest ones) upheld RFRA< which again was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

So the ones who made up **** willy nilly were the dissenters, not the ones who ruled in favor of it. Ginsburg supported a law in 1993 that she chose to ignore in 2014.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:
I never said that, but please make up your own strawman. What I was pointing out is there are many types of contraception not 'readily accessible' to some women, especially poor women. Can they buy condoms with a high failure rate? Yes. Can they afford the $1,000 for an IUD and more for the doctor visit? Not if they're poor.

The cost of birth control: By the numbers - The Week

And there are many good reasons to include contraception as part of health insurance. Same reason there are good reasons to include pills for high blood pressure as part of health insurance, or drugs for high cholesterol, etc. I pointed some out, which ones do you disagree with?
Click to expand...

Poor women are covered by Medicaid, are they not? The ruling won't impact Medicaid. It impacts certain corporations only.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Top Cat said:
Yes Vance I can hear you gnashing your teeth and stomping your feet. Surprised it took you so long. Just keep your religion out of my government.
Click to expand...

RFRA has been on the books for 21 years. Why is it only bothering you now with this case? RFRA was made a law to protect people with religion from government intrusion. I don't want religion in my government either, but at the same time, those with religion don't want government in their religion (which is their First Amendment right). It really works both ways.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:
1) Cheap and readily accessible to everyone - some are, but women can't always take the cheapest generic versions that are readily accessible to the poor. And there's a good reason why there are 20 options and not ONE or TWO.

2) There is no reason whatsoever to make them part of health insurance - they're a basic part of healthcare for women, and an integral part. For some women, pregnancy can be life threatening because of medical conditions, and effective contraception is medically important. In those cases, and in cases where contraception is used for reasons other than pregnancy protection, they're as necessary to be covered by health insurance as antibiotics or drugs for blood pressure, blood sugar, etc. And that's if you don't accept prescription drugs/devices for pregnancy prevention and planning for pregnancies as a damn fine reason to include them as part of health insurance, like almost all other prescription drugs/devices.
Click to expand...

Poor people are covered by Medicaid. This ruling doesn't impact poor people. In fact, it only impacts the HL employees.

There are 16 forms of birth control still available to women who work at HL. Which of the 4 drugs that HL won't provide are prescribed for blood pressure and blood sugar? I'm diabetic, and know all about what meds are prescribed to maintain a healthy blood sugar level. The IUD isn't one of them.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

zgoldsmith23 said:
You realize, pulling out isn't as effective, right?
Click to expand...
It's more effective than not pulling out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom