• 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

Gathomas88 said:
Great. So pay for it yourself.

Liberty and equality are not things given, but earned.
Click to expand...
If you work for an employer then you are paying for it yourself.

ED is a legitimate dysfunction, caused by advanced age, ill health, or some other pre-existing medical condition.
Click to expand...
There's no need to 'get it up' unless to impregnate a woman. If men are sick they shouldn't be impregnating women anyway.


Pregnancy is a natural process, which comes about as a result of normal sexual intercourse, healthy or no.

There is no comparison.
Click to expand...
I'm sure I could find one or two.

Not my problem. Your unnecessary sex pills. Your money.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why it would be your problem. So why do you care if an employees health insurance covers contraception?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:
That's pretty funny, "This group that the same people who oppose contraceptive mandates have been working like heck to shut down in just about all the red states will, if we don't shut them down first, help women get necessary contraception."

You have to admit that's a pretty odd response.

And, no, contraception =/= abortion, and it's a normal part of women's everyday healthcare.
Click to expand...

Funny? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the quote. But it doesn't even rise to a chuckle. You have a strange sense of humor.

This case dealt with abortifacients ... not contraception.
And, regardless, everyone can still get them so relax.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Moot said:
There's no need to 'get it up' unless to impregnate a woman. If men are sick they shouldn't be impregnating women anyway.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why men have to pay out of pocket for Viagra and other ED meds if they want them. They simply are not "necessary" medical expenses.

Regardless, however, the fact of the matter remains that it makes far more sense to treat ED as a "disease" than pregnancy. ED actually tends to legitimately indicate that there is something wrong with a person's body.

I don't understand why it would be your problem. So why do you care if an employees health insurance covers contraception?
Click to expand...

It's not an employer's, or the state's, duty to subsidize your sexual habits. I hold to that much on general principle alone.

It simply adds additional burden to an already overtaxed and overextended system.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Papa bull said:
Most men are _________ (fill in the blank).

vs.

Most women are _________ (fill in the blank).

Is one any more or less sexist than the other? Inquiring minds want to know. :D
Click to expand...


Sexist or reality. Seems to be a common complaint:

What can I do if my husband won't help with the baby or the housework? | BabyCenter

How can I get my husband to help with the baby? | BabyCenter

Did Anyone's Husband Help With Your Baby In The Night?

Husband Won't Help with Baby - Mamapedia™

Get Answers | Parenting

My husband won't engage with our six-month-old baby - Telegraph

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070118032802AAUTF6W

BEL MOONEY: My husband prefers his computer to playing with our baby | Mail Online

STUPID STUPID HUSBAND WON'T HELP!!! - Pregnancy-Info



Now inquiring minds would like to see all these women that want birth control just to have a huge amount of consequence free ****ing.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

bubbabgone said:
....There's that War On Religion I was asking about.
Click to expand...
Since you brought it up, please explain what you mean, bubba?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

americanwoman said:
No I just wonder if the decision to limit insurance coverage on HL's part is based on religious reasons, why is that not extended to other drugs?
Click to expand...

I don't believe HL has taken a position on viagra.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Pretty much all you need to know in a nutshell.

Either the Obama administration didn't know about RFRA or they knew and went ahead with the birth control mandate for political reasons (War on Women!!!) or that the liberal judges on the SC would get them enough votes (maybe they could hoodwink Kennedy again) or both.

It highlights a constant problem with this SC. The liberal wing doesn't base decisions on the application of law but of their own sense of justice or what should be the law. Thats not what they're paid to do. This hypocrisy by Ginsburg and the emotional screed by Soto-Mayer over affirmative action are prime examples.



tres borrachos said:
Do you not know about RFRA, which was the law that SCOTUS applied to this decision?

I suggest some research on RFRA. It was signed into law by Clinton in 1993. Do you want to know the main reason RFRA came into being? It was to protect the Native Americans (remember - the people who had you all worked up last week, worrying about their rights and thoughts on that trademark thing?). RFRA was intended to keep the government from intruding on Native Americans' sacred land. Everyone from the ACLU to the Catholic Church supported RFRA.

All of a sudden, Ginsburg - who was an ACLU attorney who supported RFRA - has an issue with its application. She launches into an hysterical hypothetical about gelatin, pigs, and transfusions. How realistic do you think it is that people will all of a sudden not get blood transfusions covered by their insurance? Good grief.

HHS made a decision to force all employers to offer 20 forms of birth control to their employees in their insurance. HHS disregarded RFRA, and SCOTUS (the honest ones) upheld RFRA< which again was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

So the ones who made up **** willy nilly were the dissenters, not the ones who ruled in favor of it. Ginsburg supported a law in 1993 that she chose to ignore in 2014.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

americanwoman said:
Sexist or reality. Seems to be a common complaint:

What can I do if my husband won't help with the baby or the housework? | BabyCenter

How can I get my husband to help with the baby? | BabyCenter

Did Anyone's Husband Help With Your Baby In The Night?

Husband Won't Help with Baby - Mamapedia™

Get Answers | Parenting

My husband won't engage with our six-month-old baby - Telegraph

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070118032802AAUTF6W

BEL MOONEY: My husband prefers his computer to playing with our baby | Mail Online

STUPID STUPID HUSBAND WON'T HELP!!! - Pregnancy-Info



Now inquiring minds would like to see all these women that want birth control just to have a huge amount of consequence free ****ing.
Click to expand...


If "a common complaint" is all that's necessary to make a blanket statement about one sex, then saying that most women are just out after a man's money wouldn't be sexist, either. I hear it as a common complaint, so by your rules, it wouldn't be a sexist remark.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Moot said:
What FDA approved birth control is best should be decided between the woman and her doctor...not a woman and her employer.
Click to expand...

I agree, however that doesn't preclude the employer from paying for it. Obamacare actually put HL in the middle of a woman and her doctor by requiring HL to pay for it. I'd agree that no employer should have to pay for ANY birth control - thereby preserving the doctor patient relationship and employers can stay 100% out of it.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

God wants men hard as diamond cutter. Its in the bible.

americanwoman said:
Where do you stand on the full coverage for viagra? Doesn't that prescription go against God's plan to not let your little guy up anymore?
Click to expand...
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

americanwoman said:
Yeah you men all sure know what's best for us irresponsible sexpots women.

Goodness what I hear from a number of my female friends, relatives, coworkers, or even vague acquaintances about how their male partner does not want anything to do with feeding, changing, getting up at night, or even holding the baby it's kind of weird how they are so adamant about limiting birth control. For the most part they seem to want nothing to do with the actual baby, but yet fight to the end to prevent affordable access to good birth control. It's kind of strange actually. Now I am not saying all men are not helpful with babies, but in my experiences very few are.
Click to expand...

You're either hangin' with the wrong crowd or watching too much afternoon TV.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

TheNextEra said:
Seems about right. Now waiting for the justification from both sides on their views of it. On the base, I think there is great concern on how far that religious freedom of a company can go. If there is a Jehova Witness run company, can they outlaw paying for certain procedures, etc. And does a company now have the right to not serve people based on religious holdings?
Click to expand...

JWs would certainly refuse to pay for blood transfusions.

I wonder what the decision would have been had HL been a muslim company?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I was listening to Air America's replacement (Chicago's Progressive Talk) on the way to work this AM, and the host (I gues Bill Press) started talking about how horrible it was that (and he started fumbling) not an exact quote, but: "women will not have access.. I mean they won't be able to get... I mean.. They won't have access to birth control without a co-pay."

It's not such a big deal. They still have access to all the BC they want. They just can't force others (in some situations) to pay for it for them.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Grant said:
You're either hangin' with the wrong crowd or watching too much afternoon TV.
Click to expand...

Or maybe this happens to many women everywhere:

americanwoman said:
What can I do if my husband won't help with the baby or the housework? | BabyCenter

How can I get my husband to help with the baby? | BabyCenter

Did Anyone's Husband Help With Your Baby In The Night?

Husband Won't Help with Baby - Mamapedia™

Get Answers | Parenting

My husband won't engage with our six-month-old baby - Telegraph

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070118032802AAUTF6W

BEL MOONEY: My husband prefers his computer to playing with our baby | Mail Online

STUPID STUPID HUSBAND WON'T HELP!!! - Pregnancy-Info
Click to expand...
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Moot said:
If you work for an employer then you are paying for it yourself.
Click to expand...
That is not nearly true.Even 'a smidgen'.

There's no need to 'get it up' unless to impregnate a woman. If men are sick they shouldn't be impregnating women anyway.
Click to expand...
Or women can be more discriminate in their choice of sex partners. There are alternatives.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

buck said:
I was listening to Air America's replacement (Chicago's Progressive Talk) on the way to work this AM, and the host (I gues Bill Press) started talking about how horrible it was that (and he started fumbling) not an exact quote, but: "women will not have access.. I mean they won't be able to get... I mean.. They won't have access to birth control without a co-pay."

It's not such a big deal. They still have access to all the BC they want. They just can't force others (in some situations) to pay for it for them.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They can't force other people to subsidize their sexual habits.

Am I supposed to feel bad about that? :shrug:
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Papa bull said:
If "a common complaint" is all that's necessary to make a blanket statement about one sex, then saying that most women are just out after a man's money wouldn't be sexist, either. I hear it as a common complaint, so by your rules, it wouldn't be a sexist remark.
Click to expand...

Post where I accused someone of being sexist in this thread.

I stated that it's funny how men fight against birth control but as shown by personal and online experience, alot of times they do not actually help to take care of the baby. I roll my eyes at the thought of women just wanting birth control to have tons of sex yes but I did not at any point call out someone.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

JasperL said:
Pregnancy isn't a 'disease' but it is a serious medical condition. Furthermore, there are simple reasons why providing women access to effective birth control is in all our best interests - it's better for the mother, and the child, and society, when pregnancies are planned and wanted. But about HALF of all pregnancies are unintended, and as we know many of those end in abortion, many others to mothers clearly poorly equipped to raise children. So clearly, abstaining from sex or relying on failure prone methods of birth control weren't working. The reason contraceptives were included were to bring that number of unintended pregnancies DOWN, and if it's successful, take some positive steps to solving a bunch of related social problems, among them children born to addicts, young teens unprepared to care for their children, etc.

I guess I don't mind that people disagree about including BC in the package of health benefits available for 'free' but it's just deliberate ignorance to claim there is no medical or practical reason for that decision beyond angering a bunch of folks on the religious right wing.
Click to expand...

There is a tendency of left wingers to conflate the issue of access to contraceptives with free contraceptives. The former was never in doubt, the latter was never in doubt for the vast majority of women and still isn't, at least by the provisions in the ACA.

People take their religions seriously.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Ockham said:
It's a form of contraceptive yes.
Click to expand...
Then you feel that this procedure shouldn't be covered through employer sponsored insurance either correct?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

americanwoman said:
Or maybe this happens to many women everywhere:
Click to expand...

I could make a similar list about women doing drugs while pregnant, abandoning their children, murdering them, etc. but what would be the point?

By meddling in people's private lives the government is only pushing people apart, not bringing them together. This 'community organizer', who has never organized anything in his life, has done more to separate people into groups then bring them together as Americans. Men against women, rich against poor, Black against White, atheists against Christians. It will all continue in order to gain votes and greater control and no one will be the happier for it.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

bubbabgone said:
Funny? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the quote. But it doesn't even rise to a chuckle. You have a strange sense of humor.

This case dealt with abortifacients ... not contraception.
And, regardless, everyone can still get them so relax.
Click to expand...

No, it didn't deal with abortifacients. Read the opinion. It dealt with contraception. And any company that wants to deny coverage for any/all of the options can do so under the HL ruling.

And no, poor women can't get what they can't afford. If you don't care, fine, but you can't pretend not paying for something that can easily run $1,000 a year for some options has no effect on access to that drug/device.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

americanwoman said:
Yeah you men all sure know what's best for us irresponsible sexpots women.

Goodness what I hear from a number of my female friends, relatives, coworkers, or even vague acquaintances about how their male partner does not want anything to do with feeding, changing, getting up at night, or even holding the baby it's kind of weird how they are so adamant about limiting birth control. For the most part they seem to want nothing to do with the actual baby, but yet fight to the end to prevent affordable access to good birth control. It's kind of strange actually. Now I am not saying all men are not helpful with babies, but in my experiences very few are.
Click to expand...

Any man who has been with a woman with a baby knows that his efforts to help will be spurned as incompetent, ineffective and wrong pretty much without regard to how or what he does. All women know that the only person who can properly take care of their baby is them. And then they complain about not getting any help from the man.

Yes, this is a stereotype. It's a stereotype that's damned true. :mrgreen:

I think it must be on the X chromasome.

"Women want toasted ice." - Arab proverb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom