• 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

LowDown said:
No, because the state has a compelling interest in funding the military with taxes. A waver for religious objections would be denied. This sort of thing has come up many times before. No, you can't avoid paying income taxes because of your religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
I think that was the drum beat Thoreau was marching to that got him in jail.:mrgreen:
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

longview said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's exactly my take on it. Apparently these 4 forms of birth control not being offered in insurance (which they weren't until the ACA anyway) is a national crisis. I don't know....
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

longview said:
Citation?
Click to expand...

Wider impact of Hobby Lobby ruling? : SCOTUSblog

There are six orders, but here is the explanation of one of them:

Burwell v. Newland. Another government appeal. This case involved the Catholic owners of a Colorado heating and air conditioning company, who objected to all services under the mandate. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, applying its decision when the Hobby Lobby case was before it, upheld the challenges of the owners and their company. Review denied.
Click to expand...

Another:

Department of Health & Human Services v. Gilardi. This is one of the government appeals. It involved the Catholic brothers and their food service companies in Ohio. The D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the brothers, in their capacity as owners, and their religion-based challenge to all forms of preventive services. Review denied.
Click to expand...

And from the ruling itself, the final order:

The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Papa bull said:
You can find out why easily enough. Simply attach a note to your next tax return telling the IRS that you aren't paying 40% of the taxes. They will explain to you why you are wrong. If you disagree and can find a lawyer that won't mind looking like an idiot defending you, then you can sue them in court and then the court can tell you why you are wrong and maybe you'll understand it the way they tell you. :)
Click to expand...

Then you'll be happy to explain to me why it's different? Why is women's reproductive health care something that a business owner gets to object to, but military spending isn't? Or better yet, what about subsidies given to pork farmers? Should Jewish individuals be exempt from their tax dollars going towards that?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
Yup, that's exactly my take on it. Apparently these 4 forms of birth control not being offered in insurance (which they weren't until the ACA anyway) is a national crisis. I don't know....
Click to expand...


For HL employees it's 4, for employees of other companies it will be all 20.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Mithros said:
Then you'll be happy to explain to me why it's different? Why is women's reproductive health care something that a business owner gets to object to, but military spending isn't? Or better yet, what about subsidies given to pork farmers? Should Jewish individuals be exempt from their tax dollars going towards that?
Click to expand...

If you want to understand the answers to your questions, you need to go to your Congressional rep to explain how taxes are collected and how the Congress has the right to collect and spend them as they see fit. Your examples aren't related to how SCOTUS applied the contraception mandate in the ACA against both the Constitution and the RFRA.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Mithros said:
Then you'll be happy to explain to me why it's different? Why is women's reproductive health care something that a business owner gets to object to, but military spending isn't? Or better yet, what about subsidies given to pork farmers? Should Jewish individuals be exempt from their tax dollars going towards that?
Click to expand...

First, women's reproductive healthcare wasn't the issue. That's how YOU want to dishonestly frame the issue (like a good lib).

Second, there have been plentiful challenges to paying income taxes based on specious arguments about religious beliefs and they've all failed and you can look them up if you want but I know you don't really care.

You can weep and wail about it all you want but if you really want to educate yourself instead of just bellyache and thrash around, read the decision. Focus on parts talking about the interests of the state. mmmkay?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:
For HL employees it's 4, for employees of other companies it will be all 20.
Click to expand...

Well, then they would have choices.

They could work elsewhere if birth control is that important to them.
They can pay for them themselves (which women did before the ACA).
Or they can quit their jobs, collect unemployment, and sign up for the Obamacare insurance and get all of the covered birth control they want and need.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
Yup, that's exactly my take on it. Apparently these 4 forms of birth control not being offered in insurance (which they weren't until the ACA anyway) is a national crisis. I don't know....
Click to expand...

There are other religions besides Christianity. Either you take the position that women's reproductive health care is somehow fundamentally different from everything else or you have to be willing to accept that the religious beliefs of any business owner can potentially trump any legal requirement.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
Yup, that's exactly my take on it. Apparently these 4 forms of birth control not being offered in insurance (which they weren't until the ACA anyway) is a national crisis. I don't know....
Click to expand...

Because Obama is far more interested in pursuing a social agenda (diminish or weaken social opponents by causing them to publically violate their religous beliefs) than he was in helping women.

Can you imagaine the level of outrage from the left if Bush said:

- -"All Amish must demonstrate their commitment to the defense of the USA after 9-11 by buying ammunition and taking it to a National Guard armory for use in Iraq"? and
- "Oh, OK, in some instances, Amish pastors can hire somebody else to deliver the ammo, but most Amish need to personally provide it, and in either case, that ammo is going to be bought and delivered..."?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

I respect pro-life people, as well as respect religious rights and beliefs. But in my view when it comes to the issue of preventitive contraception, they don't have a leg to stand on. Prevnting a pregnacy may be ofensive to them, but it's not a violation of their religious rights as far as I'm conserned It's one thing to end a potential life after conception, but quite another to prevent conception from happening.

In my opinion, this case should have never reached the Supreme Court in the first place. The Obama Administration and HHS should have just removed those 4 methods of contraception, and stuck with the 16 preventitive ones. They could have avoided this controversy and prevented this decision from ever happening, but for what ever reason, they dropped the ball on this one.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Mithros said:
There are other religions besides Christianity. Either you take the position that women's reproductive health care is somehow fundamentally different from everything else or you have to be willing to accept that the religious beliefs of any business owner can potentially trump any legal requirement.
Click to expand...

Well, sadly, Obama & the HHS believed they trumped the Constitution & the RFRA when they chose to ignore each one when putting out the contraception mandate. Looks like they should have done their homework before this.

Was your employer paying for your birth control pills before the ACA was passed? Mine wasn't. I don't know anyone whose was. We all had to buy them the conventional way - with our money.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:
Wider impact of Hobby Lobby ruling? : SCOTUSblog

There are six orders, but here is the explanation of one of them:



Another:



And from the ruling itself, the final order:
Click to expand...
I think the only reason Hobby lobby won their argument is they narrowly defined
their objection. They did not object to contraceptives, but post conception methods.
They may have allowed the review of the other cases, but their argument is much broader,
and so has a lower chance of success.
This was a 5:4 decision, and they are fading a lot of heat, I don't see they going broader.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Cryptic said:
Because Obama is far more interested in pursuing a social agenda (diminish or weaken social opponents by causing them to publically violate their religous beliefs) than he was in helping women.

Can you imagaine the level of outrage from the left if Bush said:

- -"All Amish must demonstrate their commitment to the defense of the USA after 9-11 by buying ammunition and taking it to a National Guard armory for use in Iraq"? and
- "Oh, OK, in some instances, Amish pastors can hire somebody else to deliver the ammo, but most Amish need to personally provide it, and in either case, that ammo is going to be bought and delivered..."?
Click to expand...

That's interesting and I never thought about that. But you're right. What's to stop the next POTUS from insisting that all citizens buy guns, whether they offend them or not (and whether it's his Constitutional right or not)?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Papa bull said:
First, women's reproductive healthcare wasn't the issue. That's how YOU want to dishonestly frame the issue (like a good lib).

Second, there have been plentiful challenges to paying income taxes based on specious arguments about religious beliefs and they've all failed and you can look them up if you want but I know you don't really care.

You can weep and wail about it all you want but if you really want to educate yourself instead of just bellyache and thrash around, read the decision. Focus on parts talking about the interests of the state. mmmkay?
Click to expand...

I'll take your repeated insults as a complete inability to discuss this issue intelligently. So I'll try to make the issue simple to understand. If you support this decision you have to either make a distinction between women's reproductive health care and anything else that someone could possibly be opposed to - OR - you have to accept the possibility of anyone or any company being able to avoid doing anything or paying anything.

Do you have any idea how many religions there are? Do you know how many things which are immoral in various religions?????

But.. I'll just assume you'll revert to type and bla bla bla lib bla bla bla.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Mithros said:
I'll take your repeated insults as a complete inability to discuss this issue intelligently. So I'll try to make the issue simple to understand. If you support this decision you have to either make a distinction between women's reproductive health care and anything else that someone could possibly be opposed to - OR - you have to accept the possibility of anyone or any company being able to avoid doing anything or paying anything.

Do you have any idea how many religions there are? Do you know how many things which are immoral in various religions?????

But.. I'll just assume you'll revert to type and bla bla bla lib bla bla bla.
Click to expand...

Is your reproductive healthcare now in jeopardy?

How were you paying for it before the ACA passed?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
Well, sadly, Obama & the HHS believed they trumped the Constitution & the RFRA when they chose to ignore each one when putting out the contraception mandate. Looks like they should have done their homework before this.

Was your employer paying for your birth control pills before the ACA was passed? Mine wasn't. I don't know anyone whose was. We all had to buy them the conventional way - with our money.
Click to expand...

Again, what's the difference between women's reproductive health care and everything else? If there's a difference, what is it? If there isn't than ANY Law *COULD* be voided for individuals based on religious beliefs.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Mithros said:
Again, what's the difference between women's reproductive health care and everything else? If there's a difference, what is it? If there isn't than ANY Law *COULD* be voided for individuals based on religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

So? Complain to the SCOTUS. This decision seems to be getting under your skin. Ask your rep to overturn the RFRA.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

longview said:
I think the only reason Hobby lobby won their argument is they narrowly defined
their objection. They did not object to contraceptives, but post conception methods.
They may have allowed the review of the other cases, but their argument is much broader,
and so has a lower chance of success.
This was a 5:4 decision, and they are fading a lot of heat, I don't see they going broader.
Click to expand...

The order itself is crystal clear - it invalidates the 'contraception mandate' not a narrow list of options off a larger list.

And the significance of the orders confirms this. The Catholic businesses had sued and WON their right to refuse coverage. Those cases were pending before the SC. The SC said, NO REVIEW, which has the effect of sustaining and confirming those lower court wins. So those businesses right now, today, are approved to deny coverage for all contraceptive options. There is just no debate about this. Cert. denied means the lower court ruling stands.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Mithros said:
I'll take your repeated insults as a complete inability to discuss this issue intelligently. So I'll try to make the issue simple to understand. If you support this decision you have to either make a distinction between women's reproductive health care and anything else that someone could possibly be opposed to - OR - you have to accept the possibility of anyone or any company being able to avoid doing anything or paying anything.

Do you have any idea how many religions there are? Do you know how many things which are immoral in various religions?????

But.. I'll just assume you'll revert to type and bla bla bla lib bla bla bla.
Click to expand...

I've discussed and argued this at length already for most of the day and I'm just not interested in doing it all over yet one more time just because some desperately butthurt liberal hasn't tortured the logic enough to suit himself.

You lost. Get over it. If you want to try your luck with some ridiculous defiance of the law, that's your prerogative. I support your right to put it to the test. Good luck with that.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
Well, sadly, Obama & the HHS believed they trumped the Constitution & the RFRA when they chose to ignore each one when putting out the contraception mandate. Looks like they should have done their homework before this.

Was your employer paying for your birth control pills before the ACA was passed? Mine wasn't. I don't know anyone whose was. We all had to buy them the conventional way - with our money.
Click to expand...

From Wiki: Contraceptive mandate (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal female contraception mandate before ACA

Certain aspects of the contraception mandate did not start with the ACA. In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today – and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees.[2] Currently, employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally, but the new mandate will require prescription coverage.[citation needed]

After the EEOC opinion was approved in 2000, reproductive rights groups and employees who wanted birth control access sued employers that refused to comply. The next year, in Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., a federal court agreed with the EEOC's reasoning. Reproductive rights groups and others used that decision as leverage to force other companies to settle lawsuits and agree to change their insurance plans to include birth control. Some subsequent court decisions echoed Erickson, and some went the other way, but the rule (absent a Supreme Court decision) remained, and over the following decade, the percentage of employer-based plans offering contraceptive coverage tripled to 90 percent
Click to expand...
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
That's interesting and I never thought about that. But you're right. What's to stop the next POTUS from insisting that all citizens buy guns, whether they offend them or not (and whether it's his Constitutional right or not)?
Click to expand...

To paraphrase a true liberal (vanishing breed) on another forum: "Beware of granting sweeping powers to the government that may one day be used against you and against causes that you hold dear."

As you can see, this whole concept is ripe for abuse: Dont like group "X" and want to weaken their standing? Mandate that they publically violate their stated beliefs. Dont worry, you can justify the mandate by draping it with "patriotism" or "women's health".
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
So? Complain to the SCOTUS. This decision seems to be getting under your skin. Ask your rep to overturn the RFRA.
Click to expand...

There are other religions besides yours. If you're viewing this as an ability for fundamentalist Christians to make everyone else live in a way which is more pleasing to fundamentalist Christian beliefs than you're likely to be surprised.

What surprises me is that self proclaimed "conservatives" who have railed against judicial activism are somehow fine with money and government created legal entities suddenly achieving religious freedom.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

p.s. Alito made a very good point that refutes the specious assertion that all manner of awful things will happen now....

Some of those same idiotic arguments were brought up about products from pigs blood, anti-depressants, etc.

Per Alito, the government presented “no evidence that insurance plans in existence prior to the enactment of ACA excluded coverage” for items like transfusions or anesthesia. In fact, he said, there was no indication that “any significant number of employers sought exemption, on religious grounds, from any of ACA’s coverage requirements other than the contraceptive mandate.”

Read more: Hobby Lobby decision: 5 takeaways - POLITICO.com
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Mithros said:
There are other religions besides yours. If you're viewing this as an ability for fundamentalist Christians to make everyone else live in a way which is more pleasing to fundamentalist Christian beliefs than you're likely to be surprised.

What surprises me is that self proclaimed "conservatives" who have railed against judicial activism are somehow fine with money and government created legal entities suddenly achieving religious freedom.
Click to expand...

I have a religion? That's funny. And a new one on me since neither my husband nor I practice a religion, don't attend church, don't pray, and didn't have our 3 sons baptised and/or christened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom