• 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!

Hillary Clinton blasts Hobby Lobby decision: 'I find it deeply disturbing'.....

MMC

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Hillary weighs in on Hobby Lobby.....once again putting her foot into her mouth. Do you think she wants to talk about her record with State and Women? Lets hope she will keep making a fool of herself while trying to raise the money she has been having difficulty with. What say ye?


Hillary Clinton blasted the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling, announced Monday, that craft chain Hobby Lobby and other “closely held” for-profit companies do not have to provide contraceptives to their employees if doing so violates their religious beliefs. “I disagree with the reasoning as well as the conclusion," Clinton said during a Facebook Live interview at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. "I find it deeply disturbing we are going in that direction."

The former secretary of state predicted that as a result of the decision, "many more companies will claim religious beliefs. Some may be sincere, some may not." “This is a really bad, slippery slope," she said.

Clinton said she made women and girls a priority during her tenure as secretary of state because she saw the rights of women around the world routinely violated. "Among those rights is control of their bodies," she said. “It is a disturbing trend that you see in a lot of societies that are unstable, anti-democratic and, frankly, prone to extremism, where women’s bodies are used as the defining and unifying issue to bring together people — men — to get them to behave in ways that are disadvantageous to women but prop up rulers.".....snip~

Hillary Clinton blasts Hobby Lobby decision: 'I find it deeply disturbing'
 
does anyone expect Hillary to be supportive of a ruling that limits government control over the private sector?...

this ruling does not affect women's control over their bodies... not even a little bit...not even a smidgen.... it does, however, prevent government from mandating that 3rd and 4th parties be responsible for providing products that women use on or in their bodies.

the ruling is not about access or prohibition of use.. it's entirely about somebody else being forced to pay for them against their religious convictions.
her slippery slope argument is invalid (and fallacious)

in addition, this ruling pertains to the US... not other countries around the world..... using conditions in other countries as an argument against this ruling here is incorrect...we're neither unstable, nor undemocratic, nor prone to extremism
 
I would be upset if she praised it, as it was an awful decision made by the right-wing cranks on the Supreme court. More than likely Hobby Lobby paid for the same birth control before Obamacare.
 
Thrilla said:
does anyone expect Hillary to be supportive of a ruling that limits government control over the private sector?...

this ruling does not affect women's control over their bodies... not even a little bit...not even a smidgen.... it does, however, prevent government from mandating that 3rd and 4th parties be responsible for providing products that women use on or in their bodies.

the ruling is not about access or prohibition of use.. it's entirely about somebody else being forced to pay for them against their religious convictions.
her slippery slope argument is invalid (and fallacious)

in addition, this ruling pertains to the US... not other countries around the world..... using conditions in other countries as an argument against this ruling here is incorrect...we're neither unstable, nor undemocratic, nor prone to extremism
Click to expand...


That's what they are hammering her over the radio with.....Other women around the world aren't our problem. Nor do they have to do with much here. She tends to forget these things when she speaks. But then.....What difference does it make, Right. :lol:
 
MMC said:
Hillary weighs in on Hobby Lobby.....once again putting her foot into her mouth. Do you think she wants to talk about her record with State and Women? Lets hope she will keep making a fool of herself while trying to raise the money she has been having difficulty with. What say ye?
Click to expand...
What did she say which makes you say she "put her foot into her mouth"?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
What did she say which makes you say she "put her foot into her mouth"?
Click to expand...

Well she said that employees will be denied contraception:

Huffington Post said:
“I find it deeply disturbing that we are going in that direction,” Clinton said. “It is very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health-care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception."
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton Condemns 'Deeply Disturbing' Hobby Lobby Ruling

That's not what the court decision said. That's not what HL argued as they only excluded 4 types of contraception out of 20 available types. That Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, and she is not being advised properly to speak about the SCOTUS decision. It's a failure by her handlers.
 
Rarely do I agree with Hillary Clinton.. okay.. never... but the truth is.. this is a horrible supreme court decision. Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers based on religion. In no way did Obamacare violate anyones rights. Having an insurance policy that covers contraception in no way violates religious freedom.
 
jaeger19 said:
Rarely do I agree with Hillary Clinton.. okay.. never... but the truth is.. this is a horrible supreme court decision. Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers based on religion. In no way did Obamacare violate anyones rights. Having an insurance policy that covers contraception in no way violates religious freedom.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with picking winners or losers based on religion. Please read up on the issue as well as the RFRA of 1993. The 1st amendment was being violated by Obamacare in forcing certain contraception methods on closely held corporations which have a religious belief.

Hillary is absolutely incorrect in her assessment.
 
pbrauer said:
I would be upset if she praised it, as it was an awful decision made by the right-wing cranks on the Supreme court. More than likely Hobby Lobby paid for the same birth control before Obamacare.
Click to expand...

A few quick questions: Why is it an awful decision in your opinion? And, you do understand that this was limited to only four specific types of "birth control" that result in an abortion? Also, you do understand that this was not about "birth control" but about the government requiring a company to pay 100% of the cost for what is in reality, an abortion?

The decision did not limit a woman's access to contraception, or restrict the types of contraception that a woman can use, as Hillary implied in her statement. She was totally wrong in her position. This was not ruling limiting any living person, but rather affirming the limitations of the government to force people to do something that is against their religion.

However, there is an argument to be made against the ruling that I made in the original thread about the ruling, and it is the only argument that is legitimate, in my opinion. I just wonder if the left, you in this instance, even know what that argument is since so far the argument of the left has been about women and access to contraception. Using the argument that this was a ruling against women, or to control women or their bodies is so inaccurate however, that anyone with the ability to perform rational thought can see that fallacy immediately and should call out the hypocrisy in that argument loudly when it's brought up by anyone.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
What did she say which makes you say she "put her foot into her mouth"?
Click to expand...

She said that it limited a woman's access to contraception and that the SCOTUS ruled so. That is so absolutely inaccurate and so far afield from the actual ruling that it calls into question her ability to read and understand the law and court rulings. And, she's a lawyer.
 
jaeger19 said:
Rarely do I agree with Hillary Clinton.. okay.. never... but the truth is.. this is a horrible supreme court decision. Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers based on religion. In no way did Obamacare violate anyones rights. Having an insurance policy that covers contraception in no way violates religious freedom.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the ruling on one point only, and what the left and the media are using as their argument... ain't it.

This was not about contraception, but about certain forms of contraception that result in an abortion, which is against certain people's religious beliefs, and it was about the government forcing a third party to pay 100% percent of the cost of an abortion when abortion is against their religion. It did not limit the access to abortion or any other form of contraception for any woman. It did not restrict a woman's ability to choose what they want to do with there own body; it only limited the governments ability to force a third party to pay for what a woman wants to do.
 
MMC said:
Hillary weighs in on Hobby Lobby.....once again putting her foot into her mouth. Do you think she wants to talk about her record with State and Women? Lets hope she will keep making a fool of herself while trying to raise the money she has been having difficulty with. What say ye?


Hillary Clinton blasted the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling, announced Monday, that craft chain Hobby Lobby and other “closely held” for-profit companies do not have to provide contraceptives to their employees if doing so violates their religious beliefs. “I disagree with the reasoning as well as the conclusion," Clinton said during a Facebook Live interview at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. "I find it deeply disturbing we are going in that direction."

The former secretary of state predicted that as a result of the decision, "many more companies will claim religious beliefs. Some may be sincere, some may not." “This is a really bad, slippery slope," she said.

Clinton said she made women and girls a priority during her tenure as secretary of state because she saw the rights of women around the world routinely violated. "Among those rights is control of their bodies," she said. “It is a disturbing trend that you see in a lot of societies that are unstable, anti-democratic and, frankly, prone to extremism, where women’s bodies are used as the defining and unifying issue to bring together people — men — to get them to behave in ways that are disadvantageous to women but prop up rulers.".....snip~

Hillary Clinton blasts Hobby Lobby decision: 'I find it deeply disturbing'
Click to expand...

America already has one "constitutional expert" in the White House who's apparently never read the document - does America really need or want another President who substitutes her ignorant judgements for those who are tasked with the job?
 
Yay! We finally found something she is deeply disturbed about. Surely she will make this a plank in her 'war on women' platform. Which will of course be tragically ironic coming from her.

Hillary is actually becoming less and less a shoe in for the 2016 nomination.
 
Beaudreaux said:
She said that it limited a woman's access to contraception and that the SCOTUS ruled so. That is so absolutely inaccurate and so far afield from the actual ruling that it calls into question her ability to read and understand the law and court rulings. And, she's a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Uhh the ruling does limit it because the court ruled that if the corporation doesnt want to provide certain services in their healthcare plan will not have to if it violates the employers beliefs such as contraception.
 
Ockham said:
Well she said that employees will be denied contraception:



Hillary Clinton Condemns 'Deeply Disturbing' Hobby Lobby Ruling

That's not what the court decision said. That's not what HL argued as they only excluded 4 types of contraception out of 20 available types. That Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, and she is not being advised properly to speak about the SCOTUS decision. It's a failure by her handlers.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. "The Supreme Court struck down a key part of President Obama’s health-care law Monday, ruling that family-owned businesses do not have to offer their employees contraceptive coverage that conflicts with the owners’ religious beliefs."
The company does not have to provide certain types of contraception to women because of "religious beliefs". Nothing Hillary Clinton said was inaccurate.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Uhh the ruling does limit it because the court ruled that if the corporation doesnt want to provide certain services in their healthcare plan will not have to if it violates the employers beliefs such as contraception.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, how does that stop a woman from getting it? Did they tell doctors they couldn't prescribe it? Did they tell pharmacies that they couldn't sell it? Did they tell women that they couldn't use it? All it did was tell the government that they can't force a third party to pay for it. Women can still get it, if they or the government or someone else volunteers to pay for it.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Uhhh, how does that stop a woman from getting it? Did they tell doctors they couldn't prescribe it? Did they tell pharmacies that they couldn't sell it? Did they tell women that they couldn't use it? All it did was tell the government that they can't force a third party to pay for it. Women can still get it, if they or the government or someone else volunteers to pay for it.
Click to expand...

And that is what Hillary said. "“I find it deeply disturbing that we are going in that direction,” Clinton said. “It is very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health-care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception."
 
TheDemSocialist said:
And that is what Hillary said. "“I find it deeply disturbing that we are going in that direction,” Clinton said. “It is very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health-care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception."
Click to expand...

These four forms of contraception are not the only ones available. So, no... the argument that "a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health-care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception." is totally inaccurate. That sales clerk can still get contraception through her employer's insurance. Hobby Lobby's insurance still pays for contraction, just not these four types which result in an abortion. What Hillary should have said, and what you should be saying, to be more accurate, is that she is upset that the government cannot force a third party to pay for abortion, since the Hyde Amendment prevents the government from paying for it directly. That's what this comes down to; the government is prohibited from paying for abortion with tax payer funds, so they tried to force private companies to do it. The SCOTUS said they cannot force them to do so, which is a negative blow to Socialism, and because of that I can see why you're against it.

Do you have any idea why I am not in favor of the ruling? It has nothing to do with women's issues; it has to do with law and precedence. You guys are barking up the wrong tree here, because the social issue, ain't the issue. In no way did this limit a woman's access to abortion.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yes it does. "The Supreme Court struck down a key part of President Obama’s health-care law Monday, ruling that family-owned businesses do not have to offer their employees contraceptive coverage that conflicts with the owners’ religious beliefs."
The company does not have to provide certain types of contraception to women because of "religious beliefs". Nothing Hillary Clinton said was inaccurate.
Click to expand...

I don't know what that quote came from since you didn't link it but according to the SCOTUS ruling, it's incorrect. You want to believe incorrect information that's not my problem.
 
Beaudreaux said:
A few quick questions: Why is it an awful decision in your opinion? And, you do understand that this was limited to only four specific types of "birth control" that result in an abortion? Also, you do understand that this was not about "birth control" but about the government requiring a company to pay 100% of the cost for what is in reality, an abortion?

The decision did not limit a woman's access to contraception, or restrict the types of contraception that a woman can use, as Hillary implied in her statement. She was totally wrong in her position. This was not ruling limiting any living person, but rather affirming the limitations of the government to force people to do something that is against their religion.

However, there is an argument to be made against the ruling that I made in the original thread about the ruling, and it is the only argument that is legitimate, in my opinion. I just wonder if the left, you in this instance, even know what that argument is since so far the argument of the left has been about women and access to contraception. Using the argument that this was a ruling against women, or to control women or their bodies is so inaccurate however, that anyone with the ability to perform rational thought can see that fallacy immediately and should call out the hypocrisy in that argument loudly when it's brought up by anyone.
Click to expand...

I realize the decision is limited to the four types of birth control, but as I said Hobby Lobby more than likely paid for this type of birth control before PPACA came on the scene. Corporations whether public or private are not people and as such there is the issue of public accommodation, if they want to be in business, they need to conform to the standard. The government should not be in the business of making exceptions for religion. Catholics are against all forms of birth control except for the rhythm method. And other religions are against blood transfusions. etc. etc
 
Beaudreaux said:
I disagree with the ruling on one point only, and what the left and the media are using as their argument... ain't it.

This was not about contraception, but about certain forms of contraception that result in an abortion, which is against certain people's religious beliefs, and it was about the government forcing a third party to pay 100% percent of the cost of an abortion when abortion is against their religion. It did not limit the access to abortion or any other form of contraception for any woman. It did not restrict a woman's ability to choose what they want to do with there own body; it only limited the governments ability to force a third party to pay for what a woman wants to do.
Click to expand...

That's Right Beaudreaux :2wave: nothing stopping them from freely finding another place that would take care of their needs. Rather than force an employer to take up their beliefs. Imagine that in a free society.....huh?
 
Beaudreaux said:
She said that it limited a woman's access to contraception and that the SCOTUS ruled so. That is so absolutely inaccurate and so far afield from the actual ruling that it calls into question her ability to read and understand the law and court rulings. And, she's a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Well, I am shocked that Hillary has put political opportunity above the law. ;)
 
Beaudreaux said:
These four forms of contraception are not the only ones available.
Click to expand...
I realize this.

So, no... the argument that "a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health-care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception." is totally inaccurate.
Click to expand...
No its not. If the employer disagrees with certain types of contraception they can now be denied that because of "religion".

That sales clerk can still get contraception through her employer's insurance.
Click to expand...
Yes. But only ones they approve of.


Hobby Lobby's insurance still pays for contraction, just not these four types which result in an abortion.
Click to expand...
Actually none of those result in an abortion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom