Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
The high court ruled 5-to-4 in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that family-held private corporations can opt out of offering some forms of birth control in employee health plans, based on the business owners’ religious objections. In this case, the owners of the craft store chain Hobby Lobby say that the birth control methods in question – two forms of morning-after pill and two types of intra-uterine device – can cause early abortions.
Dave you speak with common-sense!
This isn't anything about pre-planned birth control. Its all after the fact abortion control.
Who has insurance without atleast a $50. deductable to cover a box of pills anyway?
THis has nothing to do with a womans Rights! It has everything to do with scientific manipulation of the natural human body.
Hobby Lobby and everyone else should certainly have the right to pick and choose what and how far their coverage extends. Nothing should be taken for granted! ESPECIALLY from the drug companys!!
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
I'm reluctant to join a conversation steeped in hysteria, but Locker got it right!
John
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
KenM, good share!
Blueetc, The "scientific" premise of their argument is not valid.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
the SCOTUS ruling, according to SCOTUS, had nothing to do with the Constitution but a prior law.
That prior law The Freedom of Religion Restoration Act was passed by an almost unanimous Congress and signed into law by Clinton in 1993.
The constitutional validity of that law was decided yesterday.
A good rule of thumb is to consider almost all SCOTUS rulings involve the Constitution.
The right of the corporation has superior standing to that of a human.
Nice try with that useless hyperbole, but that is a total mischaracterization of this issue.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
In this case, the owners of the craft store chain Hobby Lobby say that the birth control methods in question – two forms of morning-after pill and two types of intra-uterine device – can cause early abortions.
==
==
Dave you speak with common-sense!
This isn't anything about pre-planned birth control. Its all after the fact abortion control.
Who has insurance without atleast a $50. deductable to cover a box of pills anyway?
THis has nothing to do with a womans Rights! It has everything to do with scientific manipulation of the natural human body.
Hobby Lobby and everyone else should certainly have the right to pick and choose what and how far their coverage extends. Nothing should be taken for granted! ESPECIALLY from the drug companys!!
Blue, you have a serious misunderstanding of the issue of birth control. (probably explains your 34 kids)
IUD's ARE pre-planned birth control, which lasts for a long time, such as a year. They are never used for abortion purposes, "after the fact".
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Every time you take a pill you,re scientifically manipulating the human body.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
The right of the corporation has superior standing to that of a human.
Nice try with that useless hyperbole, but that is a total mischaracterization of this issue.
Nice try, that was an actual description of what happened.
Otherwise, tell me the name of the person whose religious freedom was specifically upheld by SCOTUS.
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
Sad state of affairs!
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Geez Dude?
Dr. F.
Trad climber
SoCal
Jul 1, 2014 - 08:32am PT
99% of all women use Birth control at some point in their life
Most wives of husbands use birth control, your girlfriend,
every women should use it, we have a Over Population Problem.
And it's not just for sex, many women take it out of necessity as hormonal treatment
To restrict it out of ignorance and sexism is just plain wrong
and to say it's because of some Christian Beliefs is pure hypocrisy
No where in the Bible does it say anything about birth Control or abortion
It's about One thing, Control of Women in a Male Dominated Society through Authoritarian restrictions.
How many LIES are in this post alone!
AND your trying to urge all woman to take up arms against rightwing christians?
If conservatives were satisfied by Hobby Lobby, reproductive rights activists were outraged, calling the decision the latest strike in the so-called “war on women.” They promised to put the issue front and center in the fall midterms.
“This will be a main conversation point in 2014,” says Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Can you even present a reasoned arguement on how this is a war on women???
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Otherwise, tell me the name of the person whose religious freedom was specifically upheld by SCOTUS.
The individuals who own Hobby Lobby as a closely held corporation . Go and find their names in the SCOTUS ruling .
Are you suggesting the owners of this business lack legal standing in this case?
America is now the best example of how individual choice only proves that the individual dosn't have what it takes to practically or intelligently navigate systems completely outside of their competency.
Well, there you go folks.
Hey, Americans will take care of this . You have plenty of problems in your own country. I suggest you attend to them
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Ed, employer-paid health insurance was popularized by Henry Ford, but really gained traction during WWII's wage controls. Fringe benefits were not included in the wage ceilings, so employers could effectively raise pay to attract workers by offering employer-paid health care. In addition, those fringe benefits were not recognized as income for tax purposes, so employer-paid health care allowed employees to pay for health care with pre-tax dollars. In order to provide an employee with enough after-tax dollars to purchase health insurance, the employer would need to pay enough to compensate the employee for his or her income tax, plus another roughly 15% for FICA, Medicare, etc.
Thus, the effect of the SCOTUS decision yesterday costs any Hobby Lobby employee who seeks the particular birth control not offered through the employer perhaps 30% more than the list price, because of the tax disadvantage. It's still largely a small amount, but sometimes precision matters.
John
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Look around, see how its done right and incorporate it with your existing advantages.
Oh please.LOL
We'd have to be masochistic as well as "xenophobic"
I welcome good suggestions from other nationalities---not the virulent , psychologically- driven chronic anti-Americanism of a few marginal malcontents .
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 1, 2014 - 11:52am PT
|
It's discrimination. Another War on Woman decision.
It's such a incomprehensible decision I first thought it was a joke.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
laugh all you want Ward but its the rest of the world laughing at you, not with you.
LOL
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
On page 1, Jan wrote Then Viagra came along and that was cleared by the government in less than six months.Even in Japan Why is this relevant?
Because there was no complaint by the Christian Whackos (and Republitards) about paying for vasectomies or Viagra which are also covered by the ACA.
They did NOT ask for an exemption for them. But hey, we wouldn't want to discriminate against men.
Talk about misogyny!
Thank you Lollie and Melissa for speaking out on women's behalf.
Why do I care? Because our society is supposed to be based upon equality of opportunity and benefits for all.
And because this decision is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. It is also a Very Bad Precedent.
Once again the Supreme Retards place the rights of corporations above citizens' rights. This time by allowing an employer's religious beliefs to materially affect an employees rights granted by the United States. Much as a Corporation (one legal entity) now can spend as much money as they like on campaign contributions, thereby diluting our individual free speech.
Ginsburg in dissent:
What the Court must decide is not ‘the plausibility of a religious claim…’ but whether accommodating that claim risks depriving others of rights accorded them by the laws of the United States.”
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
Ginsberg also questioned the breadth of the ruling. There is really no end game to how much a "closely held" corporation can interfere in an individuals personal decisions now.
I am pretty sure the Kock Bros. are pulling a lot of strings on this one.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
It's discrimination. Another War on Woman decision.
It's such a incomprehensible decision I first thought it was a joke.
Lolli, you need to do two things :
1. Be more critical of the political propaganda you've been hearing.
2. Take a night course in the US Constitution ( especially if you are going to allow these American issues to influence your feelings about anything or ruin your day)
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
HT, the decision surprised me because of the standing issue of the individuals, but that aside, Ginsburg's dissent poses a rather large problem in Contitution jurisprudence. The First Amendment explicitly protects the free exercise of religion. The "other laws" to which Ginsburg alludes have no explicit protection in the Constitution. Rather, they exist by implication, which leads to an amusing anecdote.
The final round of the moot court competition at my law school (UCLA) usually had at least one sitting Supreme Court justice sitting on the panel. My first year, Justice Blackmon was on the panel, with two Ninth Circuit judges.
In the course of the argument, one of the students was arguing for the vindication of a right that was not explicit in the Constitution. When Justice Blackmon interrupted the student and asked him where he found that right in the Constitution, the student responded "The same place you found the right of privacy in Roe v. Wade, Your Honor." The he paused so we all could realize the full horror of his faux pas. Even Justice Blackmon laughed.
John
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!