• 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

I don't think Sandra Fluke ever argued that pain meds and insulin should not be supplied at no additional out of pocket cost. If you can find where she did, please feel free to link to it.



California state senate.

Hello, Polgara.

I sure hadn't heard that she moved to California. Last I heard of her, she was at Georgetown University. Time sure does have a habit of moving right along, ready or not, doesn't it? :shock:
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Perhaps as I said, what we are going on is what each one of us heard, Ginsburg may be on to something or she just might be hyperboling a descending point of view. Time will tell. But the first amendment is pretty specific:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Perhaps the SCOTUS will have to rule on exactly prohibiting the free exercise thereof and what exactly is free exercise thereof.

You got me.

This ruling just seems so from the hip rather than thought out.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

No, it's not.



She never once said "not your preferred stuff." She was going to bat for HER pet cause. That makes her a "loony"? If she had gotten in front of Congress and said "cover birth control, but DO NOT cover pain meds," that would have been loony. But she didn't.

All prescriptions were covered (or not) before PPACA. She did not choose to advocate free prescriptions, in general, only free birth control prescriptions, that just happen to be for women. Like a loon, other's objections to that (only?) "my preferred stuff" should be "free" was translated into a whacky "war on women" assertion. Asking for free beer on Tuesday is, in effect, asking for more expensive beer on all other days - just worded a bit differently. ;)
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

All prescriptions were covered (or not) before PPACA. She did not choose to advocate free prescriptions, in general, only free birth control prescriptions, that just happen to be for women. Like a loon, other's objections to that (only?) "my preferred stuff" should be "free" was translated into a whacky "war on women" assertion. Asking for free beer on Tuesday is, in effect, asking for more expensive beer on all other days - just worded a bit differently. ;)

Oh, stop it. For starters, "free" didn't enter into the equation. "Covered" is not "free." Secondly, advocating for one particular thing to be covered while not addressing anything else makes someone a "loon"? That's absurd. No advocate for any cause would ever get anything done if they also had to equally advocate for anything that might be remotely related.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

No, we're not quite done.

You thought it would be clever to drop the KKK in such a way as to associate them with Christians who have a moral dilemma with contraception based upon their Christian beliefs. In the process of doing so you made the false assertion that the KKK's justification for their bigoted beliefs was Christianity, a point which I called you out on and that you are now trying to run away from. The KKK's bigotry is based on hatred pure and simple. They only reference religion as a means of camouflage. Most people can easily see the difference but I guess you cannot. Either that or you were just trying to slide by a poorly thought out strawman and got caught with your fly open. Either way it's an epic fail.

I don't understand what you think I am creating a straw man toward. I have been talking about this SCOTUS decision, and the principles underlying it. In post #158, I expressed my agreement with this SCOTUS decision. I simply have said, basically, that I believe it will also apply to people with whom I (and you, apparently) utterly disagree. I honestly don't think we get to decide which people are engaging in a theology as an excuse for hate and which ones sincerely hold their beliefs. This applies in this SCOTUS case, even, because some could argue that HL only believes in this theology because it hates women. I don't believe that, but some people do. I simply don't even think it is necessary to decide whether it is true or not. The principle of freedom of religion applies regardless.

Again, I don't know how to get my point heard that I believe this decision is a principle that must be applied without prejudice without making it clear that I really do agree with the SCOTUS decision. I have no idea what you mean by straw man as applied to my posts.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I'll address it. The decision was narrow by design, but I don't see any fabrication. I did not see the specific religion thingy. Did the ruling state only Christians? I thought it only addressed closely hold corporations. Does not the law apply to other closely held corporations? Perhaps with differing religious belief's?

As I posted to another person earlier, Ginsburg's dissent expresses my fear of establishment of religion in this case...

"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."​

The scotus has fabricated a precedent where all the lower courts are now supposed to be bound by in future rulings regarding religion opting out of law... for whatever religious reason. If the scotus and the lower courts do not rule consistently on this from religion to religion regardless of any bias that that religion claims that they can now bring to the fore... then the courts are making an establishment of religion.

It's a pick your poison situation now. Either stand by this ruling and consistently let any religious discrimination trump law, or have the courts ignore this precedent and just make **** up willy nilly... which has the side effect of saying it only applies to the one religion... violating the establishment clause.

Either way sucks terribly and both ways can arguably be unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I sure hadn't heard that she moved to California. Last I heard of her, she was at Georgetown University. Time sure does have a habit of moving right along, ready or not, doesn't it? :shock:

According to wiki, she graduated in 2012 and passed the California bar that summer.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I am not as concerned about corporations being able to deny someone the pill. I am more concerned that now corporations have the right to deny you anything based on religious freedom. For example holiday pay, bonuses, career growth, etc. This law doesn't apply to just HL, it applies to ALL corporations. This was a major middle finger to freedom of the people.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

This ruling just seems so from the hip rather than thought out.

I don't know, I am no expert on the SCOTUS or constitutional law. I do know every time I think the SCOTUS will rule one way, they always rule the other. I am just a layman that when I read the constitution I take its meaning to be what it says in plain English. I have never took a course in that foreign language call lawyerese. Where shall not means you will and shall means you won't.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

as a christian myself I find this ruling very scary since it has potential to basic grant religion special rights and not equal rights.

To be clear i dont so much base that on THIS particular case I worry how the ruling/precedence could be used for a "company" say muslim owned/identity to deny me something to me simply because im a christian or my christian faith or based on thier faith.

We should NEVER stumble down the road of special rules and treatments for business, all business should have to play by the same rules.

As far as relating this to religion, obama care etc. All meanignless and crap to me this is a rights issue.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I am not as concerned about corporations being able to deny someone the pill. I am more concerned that now corporations have the right to deny you anything based on religious freedom. For example holiday pay, bonuses, career growth, etc. This law doesn't apply to just HL, it applies to ALL corporations. This was a major middle finger to freedom of the people.

We're getting to the point where corporations have more freedoms than people.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I am not as concerned about corporations being able to deny someone the pill. I am more concerned that now corporations have the right to deny you anything based on religious freedom. For example holiday pay, bonuses, career growth, etc. This law doesn't apply to just HL, it applies to ALL corporations. This was a major middle finger to freedom of the people.

This ruling applies to close hold companies or family owned companies, not those that are publicly traded.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I am not as concerned about corporations being able to deny someone the pill. I am more concerned that now corporations have the right to deny you anything based on religious freedom. For example holiday pay, bonuses, career growth, etc. This law doesn't apply to just HL, it applies to ALL corporations. This was a major middle finger to freedom of the people.

I agree 100% BUT i must admit im no educated on this topic/actual ruling yet.

I have the same fears and concern about the huge impact it "could" have to freedom but that could change after I learn more.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

We're getting to the point where corporations have more freedoms than people.

more freedoms and LESS accountability
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I am not as concerned about corporations being able to deny someone the pill. I am more concerned that now corporations have the right to deny you anything based on religious freedom. For example holiday pay, bonuses, career growth, etc. This law doesn't apply to just HL, it applies to ALL corporations. This was a major middle finger to freedom of the people.

They aren't "denying" anyone. They simply can't be forced to pay for it and give it to someone for free, when doing so violates their faith. Bit of an important distinction, there. One that even the left used to understand.


Both those dancing that this is the end of Obamacare and those claiming that this means some kind of abuse of citizens by religion are blowing this thing way out of proportion and reality.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

We're getting to the point where corporations have more freedoms than people.

:shrug: Take your money and go buy me a years' supply of condoms.

If you don't, then you are exercising more freedom than (for example) the company that employs me has.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

As I posted to another person earlier, Ginsburg's dissent expresses my fear of establishment of religion in this case...

"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."​

The scotus has fabricated a precedent where all the lower courts are now supposed to be bound by in future rulings regarding religion opting out of law... for whatever religious reason. If the scotus and the lower courts do not rule consistently on this from religion to religion regardless of any bias that that religion claims that they can now bring to the fore... then the courts are making an establishment of religion.

It's a pick your poison situation now. Either stand by this ruling and consistently let any religious discrimination trump law, or have the courts ignore this precedent and just make **** up willy nilly... which has the side effect of saying it only applies to the one religion... violating the establishment clause.

Either way sucks terribly and both ways can arguably be unconstitutional.

Ginsburg is implimenting a slippery slope fallacy. the narrow ruling only allows for contraception no other restrictions.
it doesn't apply to one religion it applies to all equally so there is no violation of the establishment clause.

nope what was unconstitutional was government thinking that i can violate peoples religious beliefs and practices.

again it only applies to private companies and non-publicly traded companies and it only applies to contraception.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

This ruling just seems so from the hip rather than thought out.

What wasn't thought out was the SCOTUS ruling of Obamacare in the first place. They've created a monster and the courts will be busy for decades.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The medical community and data contradict your baseless assertions, but that shouldn't be a barrier to making them I suppose.

I'm curious - what "baseless assertion" did he make?[/QUOTE]

1) Cheap and readily accessible to everyone - some are, but women can't always take the cheapest generic versions that are readily accessible to the poor. And there's a good reason why there are 20 options and not ONE or TWO.

2) There is no reason whatsoever to make them part of health insurance - they're a basic part of healthcare for women, and an integral part. For some women, pregnancy can be life threatening because of medical conditions, and effective contraception is medically important. In those cases, and in cases where contraception is used for reasons other than pregnancy protection, they're as necessary to be covered by health insurance as antibiotics or drugs for blood pressure, blood sugar, etc. And that's if you don't accept prescription drugs/devices for pregnancy prevention and planning for pregnancies as a damn fine reason to include them as part of health insurance, like almost all other prescription drugs/devices.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I am not as concerned about corporations being able to deny someone the pill. I am more concerned that now corporations have the right to deny you anything based on religious freedom. For example holiday pay, bonuses, career growth, etc. This law doesn't apply to just HL, it applies to ALL corporations. This was a major middle finger to freedom of the people.

corporations can't deny someone the pill the ruling says that they don't have to pay for that coverage if it violates a religious faith. that does not deny someone the pill or anything else. they still have the freedom to go buy it on their own.

it also only applies to non-publicly traded companies.

the only middle finger given was to the government thinking it can override religious freedoms.

contraception is not protected by the constitution but religious freedoms and practices are.

they don't as the ruling only applies to contraception and no other aspects of the law.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Spare me your righteous babble. Religion is fine, just keep it to yourself.

do you hear yourself? Here we had the Hobby Lobby...a family owned business minding their own business and offering decent wages AND health care WITH medical needs birth control as a part of their healthcare. What changed? The BUSINESS didn't go to the government to attempt to force their will...the GOVERNMENT went to the business. The only meddling done is by government.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

1) Cheap and readily accessible to everyone - some are, but women can't always take the cheapest generic versions that are readily accessible to the poor. And there's a good reason why there are 20 options and not ONE or TWO.

2) There is no reason whatsoever to make them part of health insurance - they're a basic part of healthcare for women, and an integral part. For some women, pregnancy can be life threatening because of medical conditions, and effective contraception is medically important. In those cases, and in cases where contraception is used for reasons other than pregnancy protection, they're as necessary to be covered by health insurance as antibiotics or drugs for blood pressure, blood sugar, etc. And that's if you don't accept prescription drugs/devices for pregnancy prevention and planning for pregnancies as a damn fine reason to include them as part of health insurance, like almost all other prescription drugs/devices.

nothing in this ruling stops them from getting it but please continue the strawman.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

For anyone interested, amusing commentary from TYT. Corporations are not just people, but religious people.

 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Are you seriously THAT dishonest ?

Selective out of context quotes from a article that explicitly addresses the failure rates in reference to improper use is just dishonest.

I'm guessing Hobby Lobby vets their employees well enough to hire intelligent, people not morons.

What world do you live in where the failure rate of condoms in normal usage isn't widely known? But, hey, if you have any stats that show users of condoms do so perfectly, and therefore in real life the failure rate is low, low, low, cite your research!

Here's another analysis by CDC citing 'typical use failure rate' - CDC - Contraception - Reproductive Health

Male condom—Worn by the man, a male condom keeps sperm from getting into a woman’s body. Latex condoms, the most common type, help prevent pregnancy, and HIV and other STDs, as do the newer synthetic condoms. “Natural” or “lambskin” condoms also help prevent pregnancy, but may not provide protection against STDs, including HIV. Typical use failure rate: 18%
 
Back
Top Bottom