P
PatGreen
Does anyone else find it hypocritical that Viagra is still covered?
Wrong. They would be forced to pay for 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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
There just seems to be a a lot more chatter than necessary for a companyWho are the "they" you refer to?
You summed up the situation nicely.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's the Democrats, the party of race, sex, and belief division, who care about such optics.
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.
You'll notice that the bulk of the discussion is about the impact of this ruling on other cases.
For example, could a Buddhist company object to the 40% of their taxes which go towards the military because they're pacifists? What's the legal difference?
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.
The issue is one of mandating that one person pay for the CHOICES another makes.
Citation?But many companies are already getting the go ahead from the SC to not cover traditional birth control methods. HL was just a named party, the effect goes far beyond HL.
You'll notice that the bulk of the discussion is about the impact of this ruling on other cases.
For example, could a Buddhist company object to the 40% of their taxes which go towards the military because they're pacifists?
The Contraception policy was a presidential mandate, not a tax for the legislative branch.
So, yes, if a President ever decides to mandate that Buddhists need to buy ammunition and then deliver it to soldiers at a national guard armory, I bet they can refuse.
This is the common strawman where the freedom to impose your religion on other people is conflated with the freedom to practice your religion.
Hobby Lobby isn't directly paying for anything. They're paying for a portion of the insurance their employees own which by law must cover a minimum set of requirements among which are some which the owners of the piece of property known as Hobby Lobby disagree with.The Contraception policy was a presidential mandate, not a tax for the legislative branch.
So, yes, if a President ever decides to mandate that Buddhists need to buy ammunition and then deliver it to soldiers at a national guard armory, I bet they can refuse.
So you agree that you have a right to keep your property from paying for anything you find to be morally objectionable however indirectly that money is spent?Another invalid comparison. Hobby Lobby did not advocate that those products be banned (though the owners may feel privately that they should).
Rather, the owners are simply decling to purchase certain lega products and then give them to other people. Ie Pornogrpahy is a legal product. Yet, I cant demand that my employer purchase it and then give it to me. Rather, I must either purchase it with my wages, or find somebody willing to provide it to me.
Wrong. Wavers for religious objections are routinely denied if the state has a compelling interest in doing so.
So you agree that you have a right to keep your property from paying for anything you find to be morally objectionable however indirectly that money is spent?
You'll notice that the bulk of the discussion is about the impact of this ruling on other cases.
For example, could a Buddhist company object to the 40% of their taxes which go towards the military because they're pacifists? What's the legal difference? Tax revenues go into a fund which gets appropriated and then some of those appropriations go to something which people find morally objectionable. Hobby Lobby was required to pay for insurance essentially out of their employees wages which then went into a fund which could potentially pay for something which the owner of the company found objectionable.
Why does anyone have to pay for anything or do anything anymore?