• 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

Did you read that Justice Ginsburg issued a fiery 35-page dissent? Liberals sure don't like losing - even when the ruling only affects maybe one percent of the population - do they? :thumbdown:

Her dissent just pointed out the tortured reasoning of the majority. You should read it.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

1%? Really? Hobby Lobby employs that many women who will need an abortion? 1% of the population of the US? Somehow I doubt it is anywhere near that number.

Hobby Lobby and similar employer-owned businesses covered under this ruling probably account for less than one percent of the population.

Greetings, Maenad. :2wave:
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Here is the conversation from beginning to end (err, from end to beginning actually), from my perspective.



And, I don't know what the hell you are talking about. My remarks are directed at your argument, in bold. If it isn't true that Hobby Lobby owns a subsidiary in China, then my remarks don't apply to anything (and really neither do yours). I am not asserting that they do. IF they do, THEN to avoid hypocrisy, they shouldn't.

As my response to rcart's posted links noted, HL has affiliates in China, but I've not seen anything indicating ownership. Secondly, the information linked seems to indicate that the employees in China fund healthcare through what is basically a payroll tax - the employer doesn't fund it. So in both cases, the argument about HL hypocrisy doesn't carry any water.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Not all all....but the ruling does limit access whether you like it or not. It doesn't make it impossible to get, but it certainly does limit access...that is a given.


No, DD, access isn't limited. The women who want those 4 drugs and work at Hobby Lobby have the same access to those drugs that they had yesterday.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

What am I exaggerating?

You're claiming the KKK is both a business and a religious institution. That seems a little over the top, but then I'm not an expert on the KKK
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

It's pretty amazing people don't recognize that poor people might actually have a hard time affording effective contraception, and that might be why poor women are more likely to have unintended pregnancies and have abortions than women in the middle class and above.

Now the employees of Hobby Lobby are poor people? Come on, Jasper.

They can still purchase birth control. Nobody is stopping them. In fact, their insurance gives them 16 covered choices.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Doesn't limit access one bit - it limits FREE access, but like the old saying "nothing worth having in life is free". The women affected get paid a salary for their work - must be full time, otherwise they wouldn't be covered - so presumably if they spend as much time planning out their budget as planning out their sexual partners for the month, they should do just fine.
By its nature it limits access. Again...it doesn't make it impossible to get, but it definitely limits access.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Perhaps. For example, do KKK members who own businesses get to ignore non-discrimination laws because their white-supremacist beliefs are (genuinely, I might add) religiously held? It may be. And it may be that this is exactly how it should be. If we want to curb such religious freedom, perhaps we should have to amend The Constitution. We shall see.

Non-discrimination laws and covering 4 methods of birth control in an insurance plan aren't even in the same hemisphere of discussion.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The case was all about those 4 drugs. The company offers 16 different contraceptions in their plan and will continue to do so.

Do you think the world has ended because some employees of Hobby Lobby can't use their insurance to buy 4 forms of birth control?

Don't be such a drama queen....no one is claiming the "world has ended". Again, the ruling is not limited to those 4 forms of birth control.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

By its nature it limits access. Again...it doesn't make it impossible to get, but it definitely limits access.

How so? They never lost access to those 4 pills, unless they can't find a doctor to prescribe them.

They have the same access they always did.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

No, DD, access isn't limited. The women who want those 4 drugs and work at Hobby Lobby have the same access to those drugs that they had yesterday.

Actually they don't.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Don't be such a drama queen....no one is claiming the "world has ended". Again, the ruling is not limited to those 4 forms of birth control.

They haven't lost access to anything. Where in the ruling does it say a woman can no longer get birth control?

I'm not a drama queen. You're claiming abortions will skyrocket, and now you're claiming that women lost access to birth control. Think about it. That's drama. Especially because neither statement is true.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Hobby Lobby and similar employer-owned businesses covered under this ruling probably account for less than one percent of the population.

Greetings, Maenad. :2wave:

Hi there Polgara, I'm not sure it's that small actually.

Here's how the IRS defines "closely held corporation":

Has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and
Is not a personal service corporation.
Basically, "closely held" is a term that covers as much as 90 percent (or more) of all businesses, according to a 2000 study.


A LOT of people could be affected by the Supreme Court’s birth control decision — theoretically - The Washington Post
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

How poor exactly are Hobby Lobby's employees?

The ruling applies to ALL employers, not just Hobby Lobby. And the insurance coverage is for the employees of ALL employers and their dependents. So I don't know how poor are all the employees of all employers and all of those employees' dependents.

But I'd assume the Hobby Lobby hourly workers and their dependents run the gamut from dirt poor to wealthy. What's your point?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

As my response to rcart's posted links noted, HL has affiliates in China, but I've not seen anything indicating ownership. Secondly, the information linked seems to indicate that the employees in China fund healthcare through what is basically a payroll tax - the employer doesn't fund it. So in both cases, the argument about HL hypocrisy doesn't carry any water.

As I said, I was accepting the notion that HL owned Chinese subsidiaries based on your seeming acceptance of that notion in your response to rcart. I didn't ever claim that they did, but just as you accepted it unchallenged in your response, so did I. My "narrative" was perfectly sound.

As to the payroll tax issue: It seems to me that it is a direct payment to pay for their nationalized health insurance. Calling it a 'payroll tax' seems to me a bit convenient. But, that's fine, I doubt we will agree.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I'm sure they can, and along with that buy the predictably high failure rate of condoms in preventing pregnancy.


LOL !

You just literally made that up
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

No, DD, access isn't limited. The women who want those 4 drugs and work at Hobby Lobby have the same access to those drugs that they had yesterday.

Actually, the Hobby Lobby women have less access than they did prior to ACA, because apparently Hobby Lobby didn't bother to check on what their previous plan covered and it covered two of the four.

And access is limited. You can't argue that taking away funding for something health care related doesn't affect functional access. If I said, you CAN have a heart transplant, that access would not mean much of you didn't have the 50 or 100K. Same here, just on a different scale.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

By its nature it limits access. Again...it doesn't make it impossible to get, but it definitely limits access.

Actually, what it does is put it back to where it always has been - how did the poor dears survive before this ruling?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Her dissent just pointed out the tortured reasoning of the majority. You should read it.

Is it correct that this only affects the "morning after" pill, or is that :bs: It seems that all the employees will still have employer-paid health care, so I call that a win, dollar-wise, against a few who will have to pay for their own birth-control pills. One of the big complaints about the ACA was the fact that men were required to pay for things like birth-control, that they never would have need to use, so this seems fair.

Greetings, JasperL. :2wave:
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Why does China keep getting mentioned by either side? China has nothing to do with the SCOTUS decision, which was applying our Constitution to our ACA.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I don't see it as a big setback to Obamacare, only a small one at best. If you are a woman of childbearing age and you want birth control coverage, quit and go find another job will be your alternative. We'll see how HL feels about that? It's a free country in many ways. I wonder if you'll see a lot of older ladies and men clerking at HL?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

LOL !

You just literally made that up

The failure rate of condoms in preventing pregnancy isn't a secret. Condom Knowledge Not Common Knowledge

Overall, the World Health Organization says condoms have a 2% failure rate when used perfectly and consistently. But the typical failure rate is much higher, at 15%, with the typical use of condoms.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Actually, the Hobby Lobby women have less access than they did prior to ACA, because apparently Hobby Lobby didn't bother to check on what their previous plan covered and it covered two of the four.

And access is limited. You can't argue that taking away funding for something health care related doesn't affect functional access. If I said, you CAN have a heart transplant, that access would not mean much of you didn't have the 50 or 100K. Same here, just on a different scale.

Their previous plan is irrelevant to the discussion here. SCOTUS doesn't rule on what someone's plan covered in the past.

If any woman who wants one of those four drugs can't live without their insurance paying, then they should leave Hobby Lobby and work elsewhere. Or decide which birth control method that's covered they DO like.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Reading through some of the replies on this thread you'd think that the SC just banned birth control across the board.

The ruling basically means that companies that have a religious objection to providing insurance plans that cover birth control to their employees can select a plan that does not provide that coverage. I don't know what percentage of women this will actually effect but I'm guessing it is very low. Not only that, this has no effect on the unemployed who will be getting *free* coverage. So don't rush out and buy stock in the abortion industry in anticipation of a boom in the market because of this ruling. The lines at the abortion clinic won't be any longer than they are right now.
 
Back
Top Bottom