• 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

Papa bull said:
The belief must be sincere and I think the sincerity of specious claims can be effectively challenged, but we'd have to wait until someone tried to run with such a specious argument in court and I don't think that's going to happen. I doubt you do, either.
Click to expand...
They may have to swear on a stack of Bibles. Or Korans.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Moot said:
90% of the companies in the US are "closely held". This ruling opened up a can of worms.

Will the government be able to regulate for profit businesses who claim religious exemption or will that be considered "unconstitutional" as per the first amendment?
Click to expand...

It was Obamacare that opened up a can of worms and the SCOTUS should have seen it coming.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

bubbabgone said:
I'm sorry but your reading of the decision is waaaaaaay too simplified.
1) not every employer will be able to succeed if they tried to object on religious grounds.
2) not every employer is going to even try.

What do you see as a common thread in the cases sent back for review by the orders to the lower courts in your own link? See anything? It pretty much jumps off the page.
Click to expand...

My reading is straightforward - the words of the ruling are crystal clear, the "contraception mandate" not a list, not a reference to abortifacients, which they didn't spend one second analysing. And three of those orders were sustaining lower court rulings that the Catholic plaintiffs won, and in all three they won the right to exempt themselves from ALL contraception options. There is no further review necessary by any court - the court proceedings are done.

If you disagree, quote me something or link to something.

And yes, not all will try, and I assume some that try might be denied. That's not what we were talking about.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Moot said:
90% of the companies in the US are "closely held". This ruling opened up a can of worms.

Will the government be able to regulate for profit businesses who claim religious exemption or will that be considered "unconstitutional" as per the first amendment?
Click to expand...

Freedom is a can of worms.:peace
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JoeTrumps said:
If all the Founding Fathers suddenly rose from the dead and read this thread, what percentage would immediately put a gun to their heads?
Click to expand...
They'd certainly not fight for more government intrusion on people's lives. Even George III left the American alone until the revolution began. Now there might be another one of some sort.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

eohrnberger said:
A perfect illustration of . . .


Apologies for the cross-thread post (I think it was).
Click to expand...

That's always a productive enterprise. Troll Twitter for the most dumba$$ comments by idiots and then make sweeping generalizations about an entire movement... I guess someone has a job and actually getting paid to do this, so good for them, I think. :roll:
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

bubbabgone said:
I'm sorry but your reading of the decision is waaaaaaay too simplified.
1) not every employer will be able to succeed if they tried to object on religious grounds.
2) not every employer is going to even try.

What do you see as a common thread in the cases sent back for review by the orders to the lower courts in your own link? See anything? It pretty much jumps off the page.
Click to expand...

Yes, the extremists who demand that women be able to choose whatever they want and demand that somebody else pay for it just as glibly want to deny others different choices. Why is Citizen A's right to choose what is right for him/her superior to Citizen B's right to choose what is right for him/her if in conflict with what Citizen A wants? Most especially if Citizen B is paying for it and Citizen A is not?

The SCOTUS ruling I believe does open the door to more choice. I can see scenarios in which Jehovah Witnesses could refuse to pay for blood transfusions, Christian Scientists could refuses to pay for innoculations, Orthodox Jews could refuse to pay for any medications derived from pork, and we could continue down a very long list.

Apart from the dishonest and incompetent way it was put together and sold to the people, and the unsustainable expense of it, the most galling part of Obamacare for me is the idea that government is dictating to insurance companies what product they are required to sell if they sell any product, dictating to employers the product they are required to offer their employees, and the people are dictated what product they are required to buy or be fined/taxed.

In an extremely limited way, SCOTUS, whether intentionally or coincidentally, has restored a tiny smidgeon of choice to we the people.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

AlbqOwl said:
Yes, the extremists who demand that women be able to choose whatever they want and demand that somebody else pay for it just as glibly want to deny others different choices. Why is Citizen A's right to choose what is right for him/her superior to Citizen B's right to choose what is right for him/her if in conflict with what Citizen A wants? Most especially if Citizen B is paying for it and Citizen A is not?

The SCOTUS ruling I believe does open the door to more choice. I can see scenarios in which Jehovah Witnesses could refuse to pay for blood transfusions, Christian Scientists could refuses to pay for innoculations, Orthodox Jews could refuse to pay for any medications derived from pork, and we could continue down a very long list.

Apart from the dishonest and incompetent way it was put together and sold to the people, and the unsustainable expense of it, the most galling part of Obamacare for me is the idea that government is dictating to insurance companies what product they are required to sell if they sell any product, dictating to employers the product they are required to offer their employees, and the people are dictated what product they are required to buy or be fined/taxed.

In an extremely limited way, SCOTUS, whether intentionally or coincidentally, has restored a tiny smidgeon of choice to we the people.
Click to expand...

Yep. And maybe one smidgen will beget another.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:
That's always a productive enterprise. Troll Twitter for the most dumba$$ comments by idiots and then make sweeping generalizations about an entire movement... I guess someone has a job and actually getting paid to do this, so good for them, I think. :roll:
Click to expand...

Which 'entire movement' is that?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:
That's always a productive enterprise. Troll Twitter for the most dumba$$ comments by idiots and then make sweeping generalizations about an entire movement... I guess someone has a job and actually getting paid to do this, so good for them, I think. :roll:
Click to expand...

A practice the liberals have turned into a science, claiming that all conservatives believe and support some of the dumbest things people say.

Turn about fair play I guess.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

bubbabgone said:
.....
Click to expand...

Hey, you forgot to use quotes, bubba.

The Green's didn't seem to have a problem practicing their religion and providing insurance coverage for emergency contraceptives before the ACA.....


"....The main drugs in question in the case brought before the Supreme Court are the emergency contraceptives Plan-B and Ella. One huge problem with this situation is that up until 2012, Hobby Lobby provided them as part of their insurance plan...."
Hobby Lobby provided emergency contraceptives before they opposed them | Red Dirt Report


I don't know where the Green's get their contraceptive information from but it doesn't seem to jive with the FDA or the doctors.....
"...EllaOne is one of the contraceptives that the Green family calls an abortificant and is the basis for their religious grievances. However, the FDA and the doctors say that its a contraceptive that "prevents" ovulation and doesn't cause abortions....

"...The FDA panel [unanimously] agreed that there is no scientific evidence that at the dose recommended, ulipristal (EllaOne) causes abortion. "It pretty much only works by preventing ovulation," said meeting attendee David F. Archer, MD, from the Eastern Virginia Medical School, in Norfolk. "I just don't think there's any element here that would allow me to say that this has abortificant activity," he added....."
Click to expand...
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/723822

Ulipristal acetate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/27/us/shift-on-birth-control-pill-may-affect-court-cases.html?ref=us


Here's Scalia in 1990......
....The United States Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) that a person may not defy neutral laws of general applicability[a] even as an expression of religious belief. "To permit this," wrote Justice Scalia, "would make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." He wrote that generally applicable laws do not have to meet the standard of strict scrutiny, because such a requirement would create "a private right to ignore generally applicable laws". Strict scrutiny would require a law to be the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.

The US Congress responded by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), requiring strict scrutiny when a neutral law of general applicability "substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion".[2] The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the RFRA as applied to federal statutes in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita in 2006....."
Click to expand...

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Congress seems to have passed the 1993 RFRA law because of and for the SCOTUS. But it doesn't appear that the judges applied the 'strict scrutiny' of the law in the HL case considering that the four birth control methods are not abortificants and that the Greens were exercising their religion freedom and providing the same emergency contraceptives they now object to 'before" the ACA was passed.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Moot said:
Hey, you forgot to use quotes, bubba.

The Green's didn't seem to have a problem practicing their religion and providing insurance coverage for emergency contraceptives before the ACA.....


"....The main drugs in question in the case brought before the Supreme Court are the emergency contraceptives Plan-B and Ella. One huge problem with this situation is that up until 2012, Hobby Lobby provided them as part of their insurance plan...."
Hobby Lobby provided emergency contraceptives before they opposed them | Red Dirt Report


I don't know where the Green's get their contraceptive information from but it doesn't seem to jive with the FDA or the doctors.....

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/723822

Ulipristal acetate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/27/us/shift-on-birth-control-pill-may-affect-court-cases.html?ref=us


Here's Scalia in 1990......

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Congress seems to have passed the 1993 RFRA law because of and for the SCOTUS. But it doesn't appear that the judges applied the 'strict scrutiny' of the law in the HL case considering that the four birth control methods are not abortificants and that the Greens were exercising their religion freedom and providing the same emergency contraceptives they now object to 'before" the ACA was passed.
Click to expand...

I'm not conversant with the details of the legal evolution of this question, but there's really no point fighting a legal battle that's already lost. "The Constitution means what the judges say it does." --Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes:peace
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Here's an interesting observation. Hobby Lobby's insurance still covers Viagara. LOL.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

danarhea said:
Here's an interesting observation. Hobby Lobby's insurance still covers Viagara. LOL.
Click to expand...

And don't think that doesn't bother a few women.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

danarhea said:
Here's an interesting observation. Hobby Lobby's insurance still covers Viagara. LOL.
Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:
And don't think that doesn't bother a few women.
Click to expand...

Most contraception is still covered, and Viagra does not run afoul of any religious doctrine.:peace
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Grant said:
Which 'entire movement' is that?
Click to expand...

I'll quote him: "Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out"
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

eohrnberger said:
A practice the liberals have turned into a science, claiming that all conservatives believe and support some of the dumbest things people say.

Turn about fair play I guess.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, there are trolls everywhere with nothing better to do. Like I said the good news is Twitchy or whoever is providing someone a job to hunt for tweets with F in them as click bait. Good, productive work.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Jack Hays said:
Most contraception is still covered, and Viagra does not run afoul of any religious doctrine.:peace
Click to expand...

Thing is, the choice of which ones to cover/ not cover was seemingly semantic in nature. Who's to say they won't change their mind several months from now and simply eliminate all coverage? I'm guessing they won't for a disingenuous attempt to appear concerned and honest.

However, the other issue at hand is that these birth control items, are not only used for birth control. All are Dr. prescribed and some of them, specifically the IUD, are used to prevent several conditions, such as anemia.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

AlbqOwl said:
Yes, the extremists who demand that women be able to choose whatever they want and demand that somebody else pay for it just as glibly want to deny others different choices. Why is Citizen A's right to choose what is right for him/her superior to Citizen B's right to choose what is right for him/her if in conflict with what Citizen A wants? Most especially if Citizen B is paying for it and Citizen A is not?
Click to expand...
Your opinion is flawed and based on false information.

FYI, no one who works gets health insurance for free. Employees 'earn' their health insurance in lieu of higher wages. So if a small to medium sized company doesn't want to provide their employees insurance they have the option to pay the employees a higher wage so they can buy their own insurance from an exchange....or pay a fine that will cover the cost and the employee will get the tax credits instead of the employer.

Most companies are either subsidized or reimbursed through tax deductions what they spend on an employees health insurance. So all that nonsense about spending 'other peoples money'.....is just that, nonsense.

The SCOTUS ruling I believe does open the door to more choice. I can see scenarios in which Jehovah Witnesses could refuse to pay for blood transfusions, Christian Scientists could refuses to pay for innoculations, Orthodox Jews could refuse to pay for any medications derived from pork, and we could continue down a very long list.

Apart from the dishonest and incompetent way it was put together and sold to the people, and the unsustainable expense of it, the most galling part of Obamacare for me is the idea that government is dictating to insurance companies what product they are required to sell if they sell any product, dictating to employers the product they are required to offer their employees, and the people are dictated what product they are required to buy or be fined/taxed.

In an extremely limited way, SCOTUS, whether intentionally or coincidentally, has restored a tiny smidgeon of choice to we the people.
Click to expand...
The SCOTUS didn't restore anything back to "we the people"....but they did legislate a new law that grants religious rights to corporations. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), who introduced the RFRA in 1993, said his law "was not intended to extend the same protection to for-profit corporations, whose very purpose is to profit from the open market."[31] Schumer called the Supreme Court ruling "unprecedented" and "dead-wrong" for expanding the scope of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to cover closely held corporations, like Hobby Lobby,...."

Supreme Court health insurance decision denounced by New Yorkers - Top News - InsuranceNewsNet.com
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

danarhea said:
Here's an interesting observation. Hobby Lobby's insurance still covers Viagara. LOL.
Click to expand...

That is interesting. Another interesting observation is that Hobby Lobby provided insurance coverage for the same emergency contraceptives before the ACA mandate and it didn't hinder or restrict their religious liberties one bit.


Another tidbit...the four birth control methods that HL object to and based their case on are not abortificants and don't cause abortions like they claim.


The SCOTUS ruling seems to be based more on misinformation, deception and politics than jurisprudence or the law.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Jack Hays said:
Most contraception is still covered, and Viagra does not run afoul of any religious doctrine.:peace
Click to expand...

Which doesn't change the sentiment. No woman upset about that gives a **** about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom