• 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!

Atty: Hobby Lobby Won't Offer Morning-After Pill

If there was something that the government wanted to mandate that insurance cover 100% it should have been chemotherapy.
 
Post them if you believe they relevent ! The fact remains that we have declined markedly in achieving the results suggested by the poster ! I strongly suggest that any suggestion that birth control is a right, such that it should be mandated by Obamacare, and that it somehow improves the household, is far more than the one-dimensional excuse offered by the poster that I rebutted.

Put simply, the factual results say otherwise !

"Hasn't solved the problem completely" is not the same thing as "accomplishes nothing."
 
If there was something that the government wanted to mandate that insurance cover 100% it should have been chemotherapy.

I say cover everything. (well, except cosmetic non-reconstructive surgeries. i.e. boob jobs)

And cover everyone.
 
"Hasn't solved the problem completely" is not the same thing as "accomplishes nothing."

Who are you quoting ? The facts point to a worse problem than before. Put up or shut up ........ is that so difficult for you ?
 
I say cover everything. (well, except cosmetic non-reconstructive surgeries. i.e. boob jobs)

And cover everyone.

You pay for it then. Have you noticed how in Europe and Canada, where they never "covered everything", they are now cutting back much further ? Providing less care now than the average American enjoys ?

But fear not, as liberalism and Obamacare will have us as a third-world bull$hit medical provider in no time.
 
An employer has the right to impose many of his own personal standards and beliefs upon his employees. He may have standards of speech and dress and behavior that each employee must follow. THAT is his right. Religion or religious standards are no different. What you and many others are doing is taking a Constitutional protection that the state may not violate and applying it to your fellow citizens. If you are on my property and in my polace of business you are subject to my rules. That some of those rules may have a religious origin does not make them invalid.

We have seen this argument several times in the courts and it ultimately fails every time. Business owners are subject to government rules and regulations. A business owner which is not operating a religious institution or organization with a religious mission does not have the right to circumvent the law by withholding services on religious grounds. It didn't work for Catholic Charities on the adoption issue, it hasn't worked for a number of small businesses catering to weddings, and it won't work for Hobby Lobby. The Supreme Court will not grant an arts-and-crafts chain a religious exemption.
 
We have seen this argument several times in the courts and it fails every time. Business owners are subject to government rules and regulations. A business owner which is not operating a religious institution or organization does not have the right to circumvent the law by withholding services on religious grounds.

Well, the courts are currently divided on that.

Luitjohan Contractors, Illinois Business, Can Defy Obamacare, Not Cover Workers' Contraception: Court divided federal appeals court has temporarily barred the U.S. government from requiring an Illinois company to obtain insurance coverage for contraceptives, as mandated under the 2010 healthcare overhaul, after the owners objected on religious grounds.
 
We have seen this argument several times in the courts and it fails every time. Business owners are subject to government rules and regulations. A business owner which is not operating a religious institution or organization does not have the right to circumvent the law by withholding services on religious grounds.

Actually, they do. And our Court system is full of such precedent. There are many case on this exact subject now in the system, and SCOTUS has yet to rule.

What's with all the doooshbag liberals who support civil disobedience, from upon every moral hobby-horse they can jump on, when its about freebies they want? But then object so strenuously, and ignorantly, when those paying for the freebies claim the same moral high ground upon which to object ?
 
You say you're no Republican because they're not conservative, but neither are you.

Do you have something to discuss about the issue? If so, then discuss. If not, then stop your mother****ing trolling, and leave the Goddamn thread, jerk!!
 
Last edited:
Well, the courts are currently divided on that. Luitjohan Contractors, Illinois Business, Can Defy Obamacare, Not Cover Workers' Contraception: Court divided federal appeals court has temporarily barred the U.S. government from requiring an Illinois company to obtain insurance coverage for contraceptives, as mandated under the 2010 healthcare overhaul, after the owners objected on religious grounds.

Its hardly damning evidence that the courts will rule in their favor. Its just a temporary injunction so they can pass the buck (no pun intended) to the next Court. :shrug:
 
Its hardly damning evidence that the courts will rule in their favor. Its just a temporary injunction so they can pass the buck (no pun intended) to the next Court. :shrug:

But it certainly illuminates that your original point had no merit.
 
Who are you quoting ? The facts point to a worse problem than before. Put up or shut up ........ is that so difficult for you ?

It's actually a lot closer than I thought
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr055.pdf

Among women who had unintended births in the United States in 1998– 2002, about 40% were using contraception, which means that 60% were not (ref 1, p 92).

Apparently women who use birth control are really bad at it.
 
Actually, they do. And our Court system is full of such precedent.

Our Court system is filled with precedent of even DIRECT provision of a service being held as an entirely constitutional requirement for non-religious organizations providing non-religious services. Health insurance premiums payed for in-part by an arts-and-crafts store doesn't meet the standard of a religious organization, providing religious services, being forced to compromise their religious mission. Hobby Lobby isn't a Church and it doesn't know that any of their employees would even use that benefit, or wouldn't use the benefit for a purpose other than birth control, and, if they did, they wouldn't be paying for it; the insurance company would be. That is why they will lose this case. You can't claim that a third party providing services to another third party violates your freedom of religion; it doesn't work that way.

But it certainly illuminates that your original point had no merit.

Another non-decision does no such thing.
 
Last edited:
It's actually a lot closer than I thought
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr055.pdf



Apparently women who use birth control are really bad at it.

Which supports my earlier notion. That there is no correlation between government provided birth control , much less the availability of any birth control, and a reduction in "unwanted" births. Frankly, I find it absurd to pretend to measure "unwanted" births !! Is that asking mothers to state whether their wanted their babies post-facto ? The facts say as I noted. That with modern contraception means, we have had a concurrent explosion of child-births in environments completely unable to manage the child socially, and financially.

Behold the fruits of liberalism !! aka Unintended consequences of the worst kind !!!
 
Our Court system is filled with precedent of even DIRECT provision of a service being held as an entirely constitutional requirement for non-religious organizations providing non-religious services. Health insurance premiums payed for in-part by an arts-and-crafts store doesn't meet the standard of a religious organization, providing religious services, being forced to compromise their religious mission. Hobby Lobby isn't a Church and it doesn't know that any of their employees would even use that benefit and, if they did, they wouldn't be paying for it; the insurance company would be. That is why they will lose this case. You can't claim that a third party providing services to another third party violates your freedom of religion; it doesn't work that way.



Another non-decision does no such thing.

More rubbish ! You state "they are going to lose this case", because you are an authority on such ?

I want a second opinion ;)
 
Which supports my earlier notion. That there is no correlation between government provided birth control , much less the availability of any birth control, and a reduction in "unwanted" births. Frankly, I find it absurd to pretend to measure "unwanted" births !! Is that asking mothers to state whether their wanted their babies post-facto ? The facts say as I noted. That with modern contraception means, we have had a concurrent explosion of child-births in environments completely unable to manage the child socially, and financially.

Behold the fruits of liberalism !! aka Unintended consequences of the worst kind !!!

You're still making a leap that more birth control is actually causing more out of wedlock births. Looks to me like it's reducing them... just not by much.
 
More rubbish ! You state "they are going to lose this case", because you are an authority on such ?

Because they have lost every step of the way, because existing court precedent in these matters points directly at that outcome, and because I know the Supreme Court Justices are smart enough to know that potential actions between two third parties is not an infringement on the practice of your religion. You certainly cannot claim that a required action resulting in a POSSIBLE action on the part of two third parties which has not taken place, may never take place, you wouldn't know had taken place, and are not directly impacted by would violate your civil rights.
 
You're still making a leap that more birth control is actually causing more out of wedlock births. Looks to me like it's reducing them... just not by much.

LOL ... I never even implied such. I merely pointed out the facts. The facts which contradicted the post by another that I had taken issue with.

Meanwhile, you have posted nothing to substantiate otherwise. Out of wedlock births are way up !! How can you even pretend that anything is "reducing them" ! Jeezus Krist for once !
 
Because they have lost every step of the way, because existing court precedent in these matters points directly at that outcome, and because I know the Supreme Court Justices are smart enough to know that potential actions between two third parties is not an infringement on the practice of your religion. You certainly cannot claim that a required action resulting in a POSSIBLE action on the part of two third parties which has not taken place, may never take place, you wouldn't know had taken place, and are not directly impacted by would violate your civil rights.

Hey. Because you say so doesn't carry weight. Links have been posted which directly refute your assumptions.

I know you are a proclaimed liberal ... but c'mon. Facts do matter.
 
Links have been posted which directly refute your assumptions.

Wrong. The only link posted was about a temporary injunction issued by a Court which wouldn't rule on the issue. Hobby Lobby LOST twice and court precedent certainly is not on your side of this issue. If Catholic Charities can be required to facilitate adoptions for gay couples (direct action), and the Catholic Charities case was exponentially stronger than Hobby Lobby's case, then Hobby Lobby can certainly be required to pay for premiums (indirect action with an unknown outcome). Hobby Lobby can't even demonstrate that its rights will be violated because its not directly affected by the actions between two third parties, it doesn't know if the employees will use that benefit for the purpose of birth control, and it wouldn't know if they chose to do so. And, remember, it was the Supreme Court which denied its application for an injunction. All facts. ;)
 
Nonsense. Dental and vision are more legitimately a part of everyone's health care need, and yet there is no requirement to provide either.

I'm not allowed to drive a car without corrective lenses. And eating would get more difficult if I lost my teeth, I would imagine.
 
I have 2 statements to make here:

1) Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to impose your religious views on others. Your freedom of religion stops where my own freedom of religion begins.

2) If Hobby Lobby wants to pay 1.3 million in fines per day, then by all means let them. It will help reduce our deficit a tiny bit. Thank you, Hobby Lobby, for volunteering to pay a little more.

Article is here
.

Not providing you something that requires somebody else to pay for the consequences of your decision is not imposing my religion on you. To be forced to, however, would be you imposing your morality or lack thereof on me.
 
Not providing you something that requires somebody else to pay for the consequences of your decision is not imposing my religion on you.

When did women "decide" to develop polycystic ovarian syndrome, endometriosis, or amenorrhea?
 
I think it's a violation of rights in my view and if upheld the law needs to be repealed. They should fight it just as others do. I don't think the "law of the land" has stopped too many groups from fighting for what they believe is their right.

The whole notion that the government is going to force private employers to pay for birth control is just ludicrous and insanely medically unethical.

So religious beliefs are now being forced on other? Check me if I am wrong but isnt that what the talibans does ? What is this country coming to
 
Back
Top Bottom