• 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

This is what Obama gets for trying to compromise. He should have gone with true Socialized Medicine, which would have avoided this situation.

Perhaps it's more a sign that when you shove things down peoples throats, it usually doesn't work out the way the shovers want.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Slap down #14 for Barack. Gives us hope sanity will prevail.

ty8eduvu.jpg
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

That is such a bs argument. Contraception is easily obtained if needed, many times for free. If an employee of Hobby Lobby wants to not get someone pregnant they can always "pull out" as well. Sadly, such an argument makes people seem dumber than a bag of nails and perhaps, just perhaps --- those that are shouldn't pass on their gene pool. So I agree - Good job Christian lobby group!

Regardless.....the harder you make it to get contraceptives, the more likely unwanted pregnancies will occur which means increase abortions. This is true whether you like it or not. By making contraceptives harder to get, these Christian lobby groups have insured that more abortions will occur. I wonder how they feel about the blood on their hands.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

This is precisely my issue with the judgment. A corporation is a legal separate entity. Because it's NOT the owner/s. This makes corporations appear to be able to hold beliefs of it's owners and thus can potentially tear down the wall between the owners and the business.

I am CEO of my own one owner corporation. I certainly hold beliefs. Every CEO and board member in every business in America is a living breathing human being who has his/her own set of beliefs. You cannot separate the corporation from the owner, CEO, or board of directors. They are part and parcel of the corporation. Corporations are given status as a separate legal entity for the purpose of paying taxes, suing, and being sued, etc. But they are run by human beings.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

This is what Obama gets for trying to compromise. He should have gone with true Socialized Medicine, which would have avoided this situation.

LOL, not totally expected because of course Medicare with its trillions of unfunded liabilities is a great indication of a successful single payer system. And of course there is the 17.5 trillion dollar debt creating approximately 250 billion in debt service a year that certainly could be used to truly help people but then again that doesn't resonate with liberals, does it?

What is it about a massive central govt. that really interests people like you. Do you have any idea what the role is of your state and local govt. really is? Seems to me that the one size fits all solutions you people promote ignores the individual cost of living, the individual state and local cost of living, the local and state responsibilities. Is it as expensive to live in TX as it is California? Are the tax structures the same, federal, state, and local? Tell me why a one size fits all program will work in healthcare?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Are you against abortion?

Personally, yes. But I am pro-choice. I would like to see no abortions take place, however, I don't believe that the government should be the one making that decision.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Perhaps it's more a sign that when you shove things down peoples throats, it usually doesn't work out the way the shovers want.

I think Obama thought he'd have at least some conservative support, since he got the idea for the mandate from conservatives. Just saying.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Regardless.....the harder you make it to get contraceptives, the more likely unwanted pregnancies will occur which means increase abortions. This is true whether you like it or not. By making contraceptives harder to get, these Christian lobby groups have insured that more abortions will occur. I wonder how they feel about the blood on their hands.

I guess they could get some pointers from Progressives.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Regardless.....the harder you make it to get contraceptives, the more likely unwanted pregnancies will occur which means increase abortions. This is true whether you like it or not. By making contraceptives harder to get, these Christian lobby groups have insured that more abortions will occur. I wonder how they feel about the blood on their hands.

The only contraceptive HL objected to was the type that causes an abortion. The employees who want this coverage can purchase their coverage through the exchanges.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

This was a narrow ruling that only affects certain businesses probably non-public corporations and it only applies to the birth control portion and no other medical coverage.

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.

under a law that bars the government from taking action in certain cases that "substantially burdens" freedom of religion. He noted that fines for one company could total $475 million per year if they did not comply with the ObamaCare rule.

Alito clarified that the decision is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. "Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs," Alito said

this was a very narrow ruling.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The only contraceptive HL objected to was the type that causes an abortion. The employees who want this coverage can purchase their coverage through the exchanges.

That doesn't change the fact that their lobbying will mean an increase in abortions as a result.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Not in a real significant way IMO though. The main, and IMO the most important parts of the ACA, are still in tact.

Actually the main parts of ACA aren't intact. For those who believe that others should pay for your health care, the most dangerous anti Obamacare ruler is Obama hisself.

By delays, postponements, granting exemptions, playing favorites, he has set back Ocare by tears.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

It is exactly what I expected. But what most don't seem to realize is that his decision is not, per se, a 'win'. IMO, businesses can begin finding many services morally objectionable and begin refusing to pay for them. As that occurs more and more people will be forced to buy their insurance through the exchanges, thus bringing us closer to the 'single payer' system that Obama wanted from the very beginning.

I see it as a win in a few ways.

HL owners aren't forced to give up their religious beliefs to comply with the ACA ruling on what they must supply for birth control coverage (those 4 specific pills).
HL will continue to offer insurance to their employees, keeping them from having to go elsewhere.
HHS (and by some extension, the federal government) doesn't get to overlook the RFRA (and I would suspect that will carry over somehow to future and somewhat similar cases).

The entire ruling, based on what I can see (I've been reading the opinions) was based on upholding the RFRA.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

That doesn't change the fact that their lobbying will mean an increase in abortions as a result.

Because the employees of HL can't get 4 forms of birth control through their HL sponsored insurance, abortions will increase? How so?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Not really at all. All this ruling states is that contraception is not paid for by a family owned company. It isn't going to get rid of Obamacare.

That's why I called it a straw.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I think Obama thought he'd have at least some conservative support, since he got the idea for the mandate from conservatives. Just saying.

I know that's the meme, but it's a weak and completely disproven connection. I appreciate why it's kept alive, but that doesn't change anything. Obamacare is unilaterally owned by the left and that is bound to result in efforts that may later be found to be unconstitutional.

Consider both cases ruled on today. Both involve actions pushed by liberal/progressive legislation, and both were found to have gone too far.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

LOL, not totally expected because of course Medicare with its trillions of unfunded liabilities is a great indication of a successful single payer system. And of course there is the 17.5 trillion dollar debt creating approximately 250 billion in debt service a year that certainly could be used to truly help people but then again that doesn't resonate with liberals, does it?

What is it about a massive central govt. that really interests people like you. Do you have any idea what the role is of your state and local govt. really is? Seems to me that the one size fits all solutions you people promote ignores the individual cost of living, the individual state and local cost of living, the local and state responsibilities. Is it as expensive to live in TX as it is California? Are the tax structures the same, federal, state, and local? Tell me why a one size fits all program will work in healthcare?

Then there's the VA, the longest running single payer system in the world. We never seem to learn from our mistakes.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Personally, yes. But I am pro-choice. I would like to see no abortions take place, however, I don't believe that the government should be the one making that decision.

I'm also personally opposed to abortion, meaning I would never consider having one. That said, I'm pro-choice because I'm simply sick of the emotion from both sides on the issue.

Government in this case did make the decision. HHS ordered HL to provide abortion-inducing drugs to their employees via the insurance they offer to employees in the ACA. SCOTUS reversed HL's obligation to comply with that piece but removing the requirement to provide those 4 drugs. I don't see this as impacting the large issue of abortion in any way, just who has to pay for the abortion.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Because the employees of HL can't get 4 forms of birth control through their HL sponsored insurance, abortions will increase? How so?

The ruling is broader than that. Companies can now use religion as a basis to refuse to provide ANY birth control. Less access to contraceptives will absolutely result in an increase in unwanted pregnancies which will absolutely result in an increase in abortions.

If you are TRULY against abortion....you would seek more and easier access to contraceptives not less. This just exposes the hypocrisy of the so-called "pro-life" people.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The ruling is broader than that. Companies can now use religion as a basis to refuse to provide ANY birth control. Less access to contraceptives will absolutely result in an increase in unwanted pregnancies which will absolutely result in an increase in abortions.

If you are TRULY against abortion....you would seek more and easier access to contraceptives not less. This just exposes the hypocrisy of the so-called "pro-life" people.

Holy overreaction, Batman.

Contraception is about the easiest, cheapest medication there is.

This does, however, put a crack in Obama's ability to circumvent the Constitution and force people to buy a commodity.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

This is what Obama gets for trying to compromise. He should have gone with true Socialized Medicine, which would have avoided this situation.

And how would he have done that? He got Obamacare bye on the thinnest possible margin, he could never get the votes for socialized medicine.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The ruling is broader than that. Companies can now use religion as a basis to refuse to provide ANY birth control. Less access to contraceptives will absolutely result in an increase in unwanted pregnancies which will absolutely result in an increase in abortions.

If you are TRULY against abortion....you would seek more and easier access to contraceptives not less. This just exposes the hypocrisy of the so-called "pro-life" people.

If you think this opened the door for any corporation to oppose birth control in their insurance plans, then you must think this is a very broad decision.

Nobody has less access to birth control that I can see, unless you think that all companies can now stop offering it. I don't see that in their opinions (yet, from what I've read).

HL didn't object to birth control. They still provide it - 16 types, in fact.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Then there's the VA, the longest running single payer system in the world. We never seem to learn from our mistakes.

Exactly which makes me wonder why so many believe the massive central govt. is the answer on any issue?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I am CEO of my own one owner corporation. I certainly hold beliefs. Every CEO and board member in every business in America is a living breathing human being who has his/her own set of beliefs. You cannot separate the corporation from the owner, CEO, or board of directors. They are part and parcel of the corporation. Corporations are given status as a separate legal entity for the purpose of paying taxes, suing, and being sued, etc. But they are run by human beings.

The point of forming a corporation is to legally separate the corporation from the owner, and thus reduce direct owner liability.

If a corporation is no longer divorced of it's owner's beliefs and if it's true that you cannot separate the owner from the business, then why should the courts honor the corporate wall at all?
 
Back
Top Bottom