Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 192

Thread: Hobby Lobby invests in companies that makes IUD's/Plan-B Contraceptives

  1. #101
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Hobby Lobby invests in companies that makes IUD's/Plan-B Contraceptives

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    It isn't "my" claim, for the 3rd time. I don't have to support any claim. I am not the one making the claim. Hobby Lobby did.

    Well actually it is your claim. Here is what you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    4 of them contain FDA warnings that they may cause a formed fetus to abort.


    #1 You've been provided with the FDA publication that shows Plan-B will not cause the termination of a pregnancy.

    #2 Hobby Lobby did not claim that FDA labeling contained a warning that it would cause an abortion. Here is the Hobby Lobby reply to the Writ of Certiorari before the United States Supreme Court (http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-con...espondents.pdf). The word "Label" does not appear in the brief. No where was the use of "Abort" (as in abortions or abortificiants) linked to any publication from the FDA or label on such medicines that they cause abortions.


    You made the claim, they made no such claim as you described in their legal brief before the SCOTUS.



    >>>>

  2. #102
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Hobby Lobby invests in companies that makes IUD's/Plan-B Contraceptives

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    taxes are to go to pay for the powers of congress, article 1 section 8.
    none of congress powers, have anything to do with the personal life's of the people, that is a state power.
    "...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof...."

    The SCOTUS ruled that the federal government could not use the "neccessary and proper" clause to compel the states to expand Medicaid coverage. They didn't say the law itself was unconsitutional or that the federal government didn't have the authority to reform the healthcare system or to pass or enact the ACA or even to compel individual citizens to pay for health insurance. They only ruled on whether the federal government could force the states to expand Medicaid coverage. Consequently, a lot of states opted out of expanding Medicaid coverage but they still have to follow the rest of the law.

    "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former [federal powers ]will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State"
    Also found in Federalist Paper #45.....

    "..If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained.....

    The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens..."



    but the company is contracting the plan,
    On the employees behalf. If the employees had a union, a union rep would have a say in what contracts are made on the employees behalf.

    ...true, the company cannot dictate too the insurer, and demand a certain plan., .........they can negotiate a plan...
    The company might be able to negotiate lower costs for the premiums if they have more employees to add to the pool. Thats the same idea behind ACA.


    the point i have been trying to make is, people cannot demand things out of other people or business insisting it supply money or labor for material goods or services, and government has no authority to enforce any demand.
    The people expect the government to control costs of health care.

    commerce clause-- meant to be used on state governments not the people, to prevent states from creating legislation affecting commerce of others states, never meant to be used inside the states on the people.....the constitution does not limit people
    The commerce clause is an expressed authority given to congress to regulate interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is anything that is sold across state lines....and insurance is sold across state lines as are many medical services, products, devices and even doctors work across state lines now. So if an individual or company sells or buys anything from across a state line the federal government has the authority to regulate it.


    tax clause --are meant to be used on powers which congress has in article 1 section 8, done of those powers gives congress authority over the lifes of the people.

    supremacy clause, -- to be used, when their is a conflict of law, between state powers and federal powers, ..with federal-being supreme.

    i stated that the government does not have any authority to force a person or business [a] to give a person[b] a material good or service, because to do so would make party [a] in servitude to [b] which is unconstitutional.

    Section 1.
    "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
    So what does the law consider "involunatry servitude"?


    Involuntary Servitude

    Summary: Section 1584 of Title 18 makes it unlawful to hold a person in a condition of slavery, that is, a condition of compulsory service or labor against his/her will. A Section 1584 conviction requires that the victim be held against his/her will by actual force, threats of force, or threats of legal coercion. Section 1584 also prohibits compelling a person to work against his/her will by creating a "climate of fear" through the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion [i.e., If you don't work, I'll call the immigration officials.] which is sufficient to compel service against a person's will.

    Forced Labor

    Summary: Section 1589 of Title 18, which was passed as part of the TVPA, makes it unlawful to provide or obtain the labor or services of a person through one of three prohibited means. Congress enacted 1589 in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988), which interpreted 1584 to require the use or threatened use of physical or legal coercion. Section 1589 broadens the definition of the kinds of coercion that might result in forced labor.

    18 U.S.C. 1589

    Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person--

    (1) by threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against, that person or another person;

    (2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or

    (3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process,

    shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.....
    Civil Rights Division Home Page


    None of that seems to apply to you....or me.


    It's hillarious that you would compare providing health care to "forced labor or involuntary servitude". lol

  3. #103
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,603

    Re: Hobby Lobby invests in companies that makes IUD's/Plan-B Contraceptives

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    I thought she made an excellent point. Hobby Lobby does have a choice.....and so do their employees. I think it's a good compromise.
    Their "choice" is to capitulate or pay a 2000.00 per employee fine.

    Hey...since she is an administration appointee, that makes sense. Kill insurance for 15,000 full time employees (that are already getting paid twice minimum wage AND have insurance coverage that ohbytheway...the employees LIKE) and let those 15,000 employees pay for it out of pocket and become new "Obamacare enrolees". Success!

  4. #104
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,020

    Re: Hobby Lobby invests in companies that makes IUD's/Plan-B Contraceptives

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Well actually it is your claim. Here is what you said:



    #1 You've been provided with the FDA publication that shows Plan-B will not cause the termination of a pregnancy.

    #2 Hobby Lobby did not claim that FDA labeling contained a warning that it would cause an abortion. Here is the Hobby Lobby reply to the Writ of Certiorari before the United States Supreme Court (http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-con...espondents.pdf). The word "Label" does not appear in the brief. No where was the use of "Abort" (as in abortions or abortificiants) linked to any publication from the FDA or label on such medicines that they cause abortions.


    You made the claim, they made no such claim as you described in their legal brief before the SCOTUS.



    >>>>
    You're like a terrier nipping at my heels, but unfortunately for you, you are wasting your typing fingers. I didn't make a claim and I'm sorry you aren't astute enough to understand the difference between me posting what is being argued in front of SCOTUS and my own personal claims on what is an abortion inducing drug and what isn't, which were never shared in this thread.

    That said, enjoy posting to yourself on this. I am not going to indulge you with any more of my attention. It's boring.

  5. #105
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Hobby Lobby invests in companies that makes IUD's/Plan-B Contraceptives

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Their "choice" is to capitulate or pay a 2000.00 per employee fine.
    Hobby Lobby are good Chrisitians and WANT to provide health insurance for their employees. They just don't want to the insurance coverage to include four drugs that are used as emergency contraception. Contraception means to prevent pregnancy not abort pregnancy. That is a definintion that Hobby Lobby owners refuse to accept and have seriously misread the warning labels on the drugs.

    Hey...since she is an administration appointee, that makes sense. Kill insurance for 15,000 full time employees (that are already getting paid twice minimum wage AND have insurance coverage that ohbytheway...the employees LIKE) and let those 15,000 employees pay for it out of pocket and become new "Obamacare enrolees". Success!
    The $2000 fee is probably about what the employees would have earned if the employer didn't offer health insurance. It is the difference between paying for a basic plan out of pocket or earning it through an employer. For an employer to take away an employees health benefits without compensation would be like giving them a cut in pay. Without health insurance or a higher wage, there would be little or no incentive to work for that employer. So Hobby Lobby has a choice, they can either provide their employees health insurance..or they can pay the fee for their employees to get it from an exchange.

    Sotomayor a SCOTUS judge and a 100x more qualified than you to interpret the law.

  6. #106
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Hobby Lobby invests in companies that makes IUD's/Plan-B Contraceptives

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    "...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof...."

    The SCOTUS ruled that the federal government could not use the "neccessary and proper" clause to compel the states to expand Medicaid coverage. They didn't say the law itself was unconsitutional or that the federal government didn't have the authority to reform the healthcare system or to pass or enact the ACA or even to compel individual citizens to pay for health insurance. They only ruled on whether the federal government could force the states to expand Medicaid coverage. Consequently, a lot of states opted out of expanding Medicaid coverage but they still have to follow the rest of the law.



    Also found in Federalist Paper #45.....

    "..If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained.....

    The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens..."



    On the employees behalf. If the employees had a union, a union rep would have a say in what contracts are made on the employees behalf.

    The company might be able to negotiate lower costs for the premiums if they have more employees to add to the pool. Thats the same idea behind ACA.


    The people expect the government to control costs of health care.

    The commerce clause is an expressed authority given to congress to regulate interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is anything that is sold across state lines....and insurance is sold across state lines as are many medical services, products, devices and even doctors work across state lines now. So if an individual or company sells or buys anything from across a state line the federal government has the authority to regulate it.


    So what does the law consider "involunatry servitude"?


    Civil Rights Division Home Page


    None of that seems to apply to you....or me.


    It's hillarious that you would compare providing health care to "forced labor or involuntary servitude". lol

    congress can create laws, which concern the foregoing powers[article 1 section 8], they cannot make any law they please.

    under the articles of confederation, the states were at war with each other in the area of commerce, state governments were creating trade barriers and trade wars, this was bringing commerce to a stand still.

    under the constitution the federal government was given authority to regulate that commerce among the states, to stop those barriers and wars, it was not given authority to regulate inside a state.

    healthcare is not a power of government.... neither is education or housing....so you see congress is creating unconstitutional laws.

    history for you......during the constitutional convention it was proposed that the federal government be involved in education...it was rejected by the convention...so how can it be a federal power?

    involuntary servitude...would be if government forced you to provide a good or a service to another person or entity.........goverment is using the tax clause for healthcare, saying its you dont buy it ...its a tax!




    James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 283--85
    22 Jan. 1788

    The defect of power in the existing confederacy, to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience.

    The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress [under articles of confederation]have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens; and the latter will be no more bound than the States themselves have been, to pay the quotas respectively taxed on them.????

    and your point is????.....under the Constitution of the founders, there is no income, tax, citizens are taxed based on a voluntary action...trade!

    “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

    If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

    The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson,

    Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

    This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83


    No objection ought to arise to this construction, from a
    supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else
    should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare. A
    power to appropriate money with this latitude, which is granted,
    too, in express terms, would not carry a power to do any other
    thing not authorized in the constitution, either expressly or
    by fair implication.--Hamilton, Report on manufactures

  7. #107
    Sage



    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,204

    Re: Hobby Lobby invests in companies that makes IUD's/Plan-B Contraceptives

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Their "choice" is to capitulate or pay a 2000.00 per employee fine.

    Hey...since she is an administration appointee, that makes sense. Kill insurance for 15,000 full time employees (that are already getting paid twice minimum wage AND have insurance coverage that ohbytheway...the employees LIKE) and let those 15,000 employees pay for it out of pocket and become new "Obamacare enrolees". Success!
    Choice 3.

    Provide insurance. Consider the contraception coverage a "test of faith" Do they have so little faith in their own employees?

    Medical insurance has always covered lots of stuff you would not want or ever need.

    Look at Jehova's witnesses.

  8. #108
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Hobby Lobby invests in companies that makes IUD's/Plan-B Contraceptives

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    You're like a terrier nipping at my heels, but unfortunately for you, you are wasting your typing fingers. I didn't make a claim and I'm sorry you aren't astute enough to understand the difference between me posting what is being argued in front of SCOTUS and my own personal claims on what is an abortion inducing drug and what isn't, which were never shared in this thread.

    That said, enjoy posting to yourself on this. I am not going to indulge you with any more of my attention. It's boring.

    I acknowledge that you are unable to post what you claimed, that FDA labeling indicated that the contraceptive in question induced abortions.


    And I've provided the arguments presented by Hobby Lobby themselves in front of the court. They made no such claim that FDA labeling said what you said.



    So I guess that closes that arc of the discussion. Have a nice evening.



    >>>>

  9. #109
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:07 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,570

    Re: Hobby Lobby invests in companies that makes IUD's/Plan-B Contraceptives

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob N View Post
    Are you telling me that Hobby Lobby didn't do anything at all about forming a 401K plan for it's employees and not use the same ethics that they used in making sure they stay in accordance to their religion on contraceptives and health care? Please. That is either a lot of carelessness or down out right ignorance. Either way, it doesn't say too much for HL's integrity.
    This tells me about your integrity. i am sure they saw medical companies on the plans. almost all mutual funds have some sort of medical, technical and industrial on them. it spreads the risk and gives more stable results. i seriously doubt they went in to each and every company to see what it made or produced.

    way to much time and resources. it also doesn't mean that they have to buy those drugs. those companies make quite a few drugs.
    this is such a non-issue that it isn't even funny.

    That's fine. But you are probably not worried about contraceptive items like Hobby Lobby is supposed to be doing.
    as stated they are only do not want to offer 4. they provide contraceptives in their healthcare plan. just not 4. all of which go against their religious views.
    and is a valid argument in front of the SCOTUS.

  10. #110
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,603

    Re: Hobby Lobby invests in companies that makes IUD's/Plan-B Contraceptives

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Hobby Lobby are good Chrisitians and WANT to provide health insurance for their employees. They just don't want to the insurance coverage to include four drugs that are used as emergency contraception. Contraception means to prevent pregnancy not abort pregnancy. That is a definintion that Hobby Lobby owners refuse to accept and have seriously misread the warning labels on the drugs.

    The $2000 fee is probably about what the employees would have earned if the employer didn't offer health insurance. It is the difference between paying for a basic plan out of pocket or earning it through an employer. For an employer to take away an employees health benefits without compensation would be like giving them a cut in pay. Without health insurance or a higher wage, there would be little or no incentive to work for that employer. So Hobby Lobby has a choice, they can either provide their employees health insurance..or they can pay the fee for their employees to get it from an exchange.

    Sotomayor a SCOTUS judge and a 100x more qualified than you to interpret the law.
    Sotomayor has offered her OPINION. It is not a legal opinion, it is a personal opinion. Her verbiage is clear and present throughlut her questions and it has absolutely zero to do with legal precedent. The Supreme Court has not ruled. When it does, there will be established caselaw and it will be the rule of the land. Until then, it is mere opinion. Sotomayor is driven by ideology, no different than you or I.

    Hobby Lobby has a third choice...fight being forced to pay for an abortion drug. They are choosing that option. When they lose, and they probably will...they will likely choose to kill their insurance program for all of their employees. That scenario you are celebrating is ****ing stupid. If you cant seer that...well...

Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... 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
  •