• 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

IIt does something far, far worse: It give employers, at least some employers, the ability not to be forced to support and pay for something they have a religious and moral objection too.


And if my employer has a religious and moral objection to paying overtime, which is a federal provision in the Fair Labor Standards Act, can he opt out of that based on his objections?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

And if my employer has a religious and moral objection to paying overtime, which is a federal provision in the Fair Labor Standards Act, can he opt out of that based on his objections?

No, I don't think so.

Don't get mad at me. SCOTUS rendered the opinion. And they didn't consult with me. :) (I'd have made myself available for them).
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

No, I don't think so.

Don't get mad at me. SCOTUS rendered the opinion. And they didn't consult with me. :) (I'd have made myself available for them).

Their loss, they don't know what they're missing out on. :)
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Their loss, they don't know what they're missing out on. :)

What bothers me more than anything is the entitlement mentality being created in this country today as it is everyone else's fault for personal problems and everyone else's responsibility to provide for personal responsibility issues. I don't get it, grew up learning personal responsibilities and if I made bad choices there were bad consequences. Doesn't seem to be the case today as people want to do whatever they want, get someone else to pay for it, and never accept responsibility for anything.

Women and men had personal responsibility issues long before ACA and yes there were unwanted pregnancies but the ease at which women and men can get contraception today makes all these claims look foolish. Any woman can go into Planned Parenthood and get birth control pills or you can go to any other women's center and get the same thing but rather than do this the radical left believes it is the taxpayers' responsibilities to fund their personal choice and responsibility issues even though the taxpayer does fund Planned Parenthood.

I don't get it, women aren't being denied healthcare no matter what the media tells you. This is nothing more than more distortion from the left in an attempt to fire up their base for the upcoming fall elections which will be a liberal disaster.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I'd have to agree. ObamaCare, as of yet, has not lived up to any of the promises it was sold on, such as 'you can keep your plan' and 'you can keep your doctor'; the reality being is that you probably can't keep either.

The same 'sales' job is going on with the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision.
No, it doesn't not cut off contraceptives from the Hobby Lobby employees (16 of 20 contraception medications are still provided, just the 4 abortion inducing ones are not).
No, it doesn't eliminate women's healthcare.
No, it doesn't formalize gender discrimination.
No, it won't prevent the sun from rising.
No, it doesn't do a lot of things that the Biased Lame Stream Media are all reporting that it does.

It does something far, far worse: It give employers, at least some employers, the ability not to be forced to support and pay for something they have a religious and moral objection too. It takes away the power of government to force an employer to support and pay for something the have a religious and moral objection too. It strikes at the heart of liberal / progressive doctrine and their delusional self-image of omnipotence in that they know what's best for everyone.

!! Inexcusable !! Impermissible !!

As you can see with the fire rhetoric (lies, distortions and propaganda) from the left as well as their leftist allies in the Biased Main Stream Media.

What it does do, and this'll be an interesting point to observe the development of, is open the door to this and similar scenarios: A Jehovah's Witness owned businesses can now exclude blood transfusions from their employees medical coverage on religious grounds?

This is nothing more than a ploy from the left to fire up their base and create a false narrative that there is a war on women perpetuated by the right. The Fall elections are going to be a disaster for the Democrats and they are going to pull out all the stops to lie, cheat, and steal in an attempt to get the low information voter back out to the polls. Their entire liberal agenda depends on their ability to stir up so much hatred that there is a run on the polls this fall with a flood of leftwing voters. The misinformation being spewed here is incredible.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

If a person (woman or man) doesn't want to get involved with the birth control of another person (woman or man), I have no desire to punish their uninvolvement. Some are claiming this as proof that I hate women.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I can tell you one thing for sure, the democratic party is hoping the right wing repeats that point over and over and over for the next few months heading into the elections and that every competitive seat has a GOPer making that exact point. ;)

Yes, because the Democrats feed on the irresponsibility of the subjects they placate, brainwash, and control.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Now to me, no rights per say have been taken away so much as I feel like my company is trying to make decisions for me.

Thank you. I agree with you that no rights were taken away, that I can see anyway... Which I would guess is why the op-eds probably didn't specify what right was being taken away while still complaining that their rights were being taken away.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Yes it is.

The cases sent back for review were for Catholic plaintiffs.

This is the last time I'm going to say this because your insincerity (there's an internet word for it but I won't use it) is tiring.
HL won their case which was brought because of the mandated abortifacient coverage.
If any other business objects to any particular mandated coverage & can satisfy the guidelines in the ruling then they will & should be given relief.
Period.
End of story.
And that's the way it is.
The Judicial system.
The thread can be closed now.

I don't mind you disagreeing, but you can't accuse me of being 'insincere' and expect me to ignore that.

Three cases weren't sent back for any review. I'll list the three: Wider impact of Hobby Lobby ruling? : SCOTUSblog

Burwell v. Korte. (CA DC)
Burwell v. Newland. (CA 10)
Department of Health & Human Services v. Gilardi. (CA7)

I noted that all three were won by Catholic employers who sued, and WON, the right to deny coverage for any of the 20 forms of BC. They won their cases at the Court of Appeals level, and the only place to go after that is the U.S. Supreme Court. On Tuesday, the SC denied cert., which means the court proceedings are over for those three employers, and the decisions FOR the Catholic employers stand, and there can be no further review. That means the Catholic owners can, today, right now, as we speak, legally deny coverage for ALL forms of BC. They don't have to go back to court, they have won their lawsuits and there is no way for the government to appeal. The SC has denied any review of those cases.

There is no dispute about this. The SC ruling was broader than just the 4 disputed abortifacients and covered the "contraception mandate" in its entirety. If an employer can reasonably assert that he has a religious objection to ALL contraception, which is the official position of the Catholic Church, among other religions, the SC has said, clearly and unambiguously, that the business he owns can deny coverage for ALL types of BC.

If you disagree, give me a link. But insulting me or accusing me of bad faith when you got nothing but insults doesn't cut it. Show me your work, and we can have a rational debate.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

And I'm asking you why you feel that way and you're dancing around instead of answering.
Doesn't look good.

I'm not dancing at all. There are many reasons why it should be the last resort, the obvious, a fairly complex medical procedure is more involved that using a rubber or the pill. Given the choice, I think most people would choose the least involved form.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I misspoke, they'll have access to 16 kinds of contraceptive. If you can't find one that works for you, stay out of the bedroom.
Again....obviously you are missing the big picture. Let me spell it out to you. The court ruling isn't limited to Hobby Lobby nor is it limited to the 4 forms involved. The court ruling invites companies to ban coverage of all birth control based on religious grounds. Got it now?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

that's non-sense.

the ruling simple maintains what was all ready in place before the administration decided, not congress, to make all forms of contraception free.

Wow....you are sadly mistaken. Read the decision.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Who made a decision for me? I missed that.

It's not who did. Hopefully no one has taken anything from you yet. But, the danger is now there. Your employer's religion can now be used as an excuse to deny you what you are legally entitled to.

What would be different about a Jehovah's Witness owner making a determination that your heath care which you pay for doesn't cover blood transfusions? Or what about a Scientologist refusing to contribute to mandated prescription drug care? These aren't just hypothetical situations. They're very very real.

If I'm a business owner and I can use my religious beliefs to avoid paying for something, then I'm certainly going to do it. This gives people with "deeply held" religious beliefs a governmentally derived benefit which is a CLEAR violation of the establishment clause.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The purpose of ACA was to insure what Obama said was 40 plus million uninsured AMERICANS and reduce the costs at the same time. It did neither and those here that continue to spout that rhetoric have the same credibility as Obama.

I have seen nothing in this ruling that prevents women from getting contraception as if the previous 50 years contraception was unavailable and Obama saved women from unwanted pregnancies. Guess some people will always be gullible and buy what they read and are told rather than doing their own research to verify the rhetoric.

Goodness, we have 1.2 million abortions per year, and we don't have to guess that most of them occur in poorer areas of the country. Do you think that those women were using reliable contraception? If not, the next question is why not? They WANT to spend $500 on an abortion because they got nothing better to spend their money on? Don't you think that if reliable contraception is made more accessible, particularly to the poor, that the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies of all kinds might go down a bit?

All you're doing is spewing right wing talking points. If you have a serious point, such as that cost and/or access posed no barrier to women getting reliable contraception, that's fine. Make that point and we can debate something concrete. But what the research says is making things hard to get and expensive, especially on the budget of a poor person, that few will actually, you know, access it. And when you remove barriers, such as cost, and difficulty, more women use reliable contraception. If you disagree, that's fine, but what part exactly do you disagree with?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Again....obviously you are missing the big picture. Let me spell it out to you. The court ruling isn't limited to Hobby Lobby nor is it limited to the 4 forms involved. The court ruling invites companies to ban coverage of all birth control based on religious grounds. Got it now?

it's a simple and obvious point. Not sure why it's so hard for some people on here to grasp.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

No, I don't think so.

Don't get mad at me. SCOTUS rendered the opinion. And they didn't consult with me. :) (I'd have made myself available for them).

Why not? What's the legal difference between being legally obligated to compensate your employees with overtime and being legally obligated to compensate your employees with subsidies toward a health care package? Why would someone get to opt out of one but not the other? Is an opposition to birth control somehow a more "reasonable" deeply held moral belief than an opposition to paying overtime?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Goodness, we have 1.2 million abortions per year, and we don't have to guess that most of them occur in poorer areas of the country. Do you think that those women were using reliable contraception? If not, the next question is why not? They WANT to spend $500 on an abortion because they got nothing better to spend their money on? Don't you think that if reliable contraception is made more accessible, particularly to the poor, that the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies of all kinds might go down a bit?

All you're doing is spewing right wing talking points. If you have a serious point, such as that cost and/or access posed no barrier to women getting reliable contraception, that's fine. Make that point and we can debate something concrete. But what the research says is making things hard to get and expensive, especially on the budget of a poor person, that few will actually, you know, access it. And when you remove barriers, such as cost, and difficulty, more women use reliable contraception. If you disagree, that's fine, but what part exactly do you disagree with?

Right wing talking points? is that the best you can do. What is preventing you from going to PLANNED PARENTHOOD and getting FREE Birth control pill?

What rights has a woman lost due to this ruling? Sounds to me like leftwing actions on your part. I don't think it is the employees right to tell a private business owner what benefits to provide for an employee. You want specific benefits, either start your own business or find a company that meets your requirements
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Why not? What's the legal difference between being legally obligated to compensate your employees with overtime and being legally obligated to compensate your employees with subsidies toward a health care package? Why would someone get to opt out of one but not the other? Is an opposition to birth control somehow a more "reasonable" deeply held moral belief than an opposition to paying overtime?

The difference is that the court case was about the inability for the ACA contraception mandate to coincide with what an existing law(RFRA) already stated.

I don't believe anything in the FLSA conflicts with the RFRA, but there hasn't been a case asking for clarification either.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Didn't say it wasn't. Try again.

And I said it was. No need to try again.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

What bothers me more than anything is the entitlement mentality being created in this country today as it is everyone else's fault for personal problems and everyone else's responsibility to provide for personal responsibility issues. I don't get it, grew up learning personal responsibilities and if I made bad choices there were bad consequences. Doesn't seem to be the case today as people want to do whatever they want, get someone else to pay for it, and never accept responsibility for anything.

Women and men had personal responsibility issues long before ACA and yes there were unwanted pregnancies but the ease at which women and men can get contraception today makes all these claims look foolish. Any woman can go into Planned Parenthood and get birth control pills or you can go to any other women's center and get the same thing but rather than do this the radical left believes it is the taxpayers' responsibilities to fund their personal choice and responsibility issues even though the taxpayer does fund Planned Parenthood.

I don't get it, women aren't being denied healthcare no matter what the media tells you. This is nothing more than more distortion from the left in an attempt to fire up their base for the upcoming fall elections which will be a liberal disaster.

First of all, women work for their healthcare benefits, same as you do and everyone on here who gets health insurance from their employer. If they use earned healthcare benefits to obtain contraception, isn't that what being personally responsible is all about. Working a JOB, EARNING benefits, and taking care of healthcare needs? Heck, if the women aren't responsible and do not take advantage of the prescription drug coverage for contraception like it covers most all other prescription drugs, then it won't cost the employer a damn penny because the women will just get abortions when necessary, and they have to pay for that.

And it's also odd that you want women to be responsible about preventing pregnancy (if that's the goal) and then don't see any problems when an employer puts up barriers that makes it more expensive and far more difficult to be responsible. Instead of getting contraception at the local drugstore, there's no problem making them trek across town, wait in a long line at the PP office right wingers are trying like heck to shut down and defund all over the country. If you want to see more unwanted pregnancies and abortions, that's a damn fine way to make that happen because we can scold people all day long and it won't change human nature. Make something, anything, difficult and inconvenient and costly and people do less of it, no matter how much they need to do that thing.

Besides, the problem that is so blindingly obvious to us liberals is the right wingers are drawing this line, and on one side is legitimate "healthcare" and on the other are slut pills. And they can't grasp why women are so upset about getting their slut pills taken away, or making them pay for their slut pills out of their own pocket, or jump through unnecessary hoops to get them. Heck, they can just not f*** if they can't afford their own slut pills.

To lots and lots of women, there is no line there. Healthcare is healthcare, and that emphatically includes contraception and family planning for women of child bearing age.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Right wing talking points? is that the best you can do. What is preventing you from going to PLANNED PARENTHOOD and getting FREE Birth control pill?

What rights has a woman lost due to this ruling? Sounds to me like leftwing actions on your part. I don't think it is the employees right to tell a private business owner what benefits to provide for an employee. You want specific benefits, either start your own business or find a company that meets your requirements

OK, I see you're not interested in addressing any of the points I made.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

First of all, women work for their healthcare benefits, same as you do and everyone on here who gets health insurance from their employer. If they use earned healthcare benefits to obtain contraception, isn't that what being personally responsible is all about. Working a JOB, EARNING benefits, and taking care of healthcare needs? Heck, if the women aren't responsible and do not take advantage of the prescription drug coverage for contraception like it covers most all other prescription drugs, then it won't cost the employer a damn penny because the women will just get abortions when necessary, and they have to pay for that.

And it's also odd that you want women to be responsible about preventing pregnancy (if that's the goal) and then don't see any problems when an employer puts up barriers that makes it more expensive and far more difficult to be responsible. Instead of getting contraception at the local drugstore, there's no problem making them trek across town, wait in a long line at the PP office right wingers are trying like heck to shut down and defund all over the country. If you want to see more unwanted pregnancies and abortions, that's a damn fine way to make that happen because we can scold people all day long and it won't change human nature. Make something, anything, difficult and inconvenient and costly and people do less of it, no matter how much they need to do that thing.

Besides, the problem that is so blindingly obvious to us liberals is the right wingers are drawing this line, and on one side is legitimate "healthcare" and on the other are slut pills. And they can't grasp why women are so upset about getting their slut pills taken away, or making them pay for their slut pills out of their own pocket, or jump through unnecessary hoops to get them. Heck, they can just not f*** if they can't afford their own slut pills.

To lots and lots of women, there is no line there. Healthcare is healthcare, and that emphatically includes contraception and family planning for women of child bearing age.

What part of FREE from Planned Parenthood do you not understand? Eliminating 4 contraception drugs isn't taking away women's health care. Keep spouting the leftwing lies. You leftwing zealots better understand what Obama is doing to "your" country and "mine." Really is sad
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

What part of FREE from Planned Parenthood do you not understand? Eliminating 4 contraception drugs isn't taking away women's health care. Keep spouting the leftwing lies. You leftwing zealots better understand what Obama is doing to "your" country and "mine." Really is sad

It's more than 4, so if you believe that someone other than left wingers is lying to you, or you just haven't kept up.

And I see you're again not interested in addressing any actual arguments.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Yes, because the Democrats feed on the irresponsibility of the subjects they placate, brainwash, and control.

That's not it. Here's the comment:

"Have you so little self control, or a complete inability to access the many free contraceptives available, that you find it necessary to bully your employer into paying for your sexcapades? Do you not find it your responsibility to manage your reproductive organs?

Sadly pathetic."

I explained it above. You're putting slut pills on one side of the line (did you learn this from Rush Limbaugh?), and healthcare on the other. It's offensive to many, many women, and the more GOPers repeat that kind of stuff, the more they'll drive women for decades into the democratic party. If you don't understand, that's actually fine.

What would be GREAT is next time you're in line for any prescription drug (heart disease, cholesterol, high blood pressure, whatever), if you see a women getting a prescription for contraception filled, say REALLY loud, "I sure hope you didn't bully your employer into paying for your slut pills so you can whore around with no consequences!!"
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Again....obviously you are missing the big picture. Let me spell it out to you. The court ruling isn't limited to Hobby Lobby nor is it limited to the 4 forms involved. The court ruling invites companies to ban coverage of all birth control based on religious grounds. Got it now?

That"s your opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom