It is currently Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:28 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 275 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Seacrest wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
So this decision will lead to more unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Congrats HobbyLobby


So female HobbyLobby employee's are banned from attaining birtch control?

No, but some of them will not pay for it themselves. If not for this decision they would have their birth control. Just a fact.


The decision leaves them to be accountable for the decisions that they choose to make. Or not make for that matter.

Correct.

But the fact remains that a consequence of this decision will be more unwanted pregnancies.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:22 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38622
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Seacrest wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
So this decision will lead to more unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Congrats HobbyLobby


So female HobbyLobby employee's are banned from attaining birtch control?

No, but some of them will not pay for it themselves. If not for this decision they would have their birth control. Just a fact.


The decision leaves them to be accountable for the decisions that they choose to make. Or not make for that matter.

Correct.

rogers park bryan wrote:
But the fact remains that a consequence of this decision will be more unwanted pregnancies.


Not necessarily.

It could also lead to women taking more control over what they do.

And who they choose to do it with.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
rogers park bryan wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
So this decision will lead to more unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Congrats HobbyLobby


So female HobbyLobby employee's are banned from attaining birtch control?

No, but some of them will not pay for it themselves. If not for this decision they would have their birth control. Just a fact.


So people won't be responsible for themselves if they don't get their birth control for free and have someone else pay for it? It isn't like it costs 500 a month or something.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Seacrest wrote:

Not necessarily.

It could also lead to women taking more control over what they do.

And who they choose to do it with.

Im not optimistic on that. Hope I'm wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
SomeGuy wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
So this decision will lead to more unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Congrats HobbyLobby


So female HobbyLobby employee's are banned from attaining birtch control?

No, but some of them will not pay for it themselves. If not for this decision they would have their birth control. Just a fact.


So people won't be responsible for themselves if they don't get their birth control for free and have someone else pay for it? It isn't like it costs 500 a month or something.

Sure they're responsible. Its not blaming Hobby Lobby. Its just a result. If the decision went the other way, more people would probably get birth control, dont you think?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
Not really.

How many were on birth control before the mandate? So now that someone else isn't paying for it they are going to stop and have unprotected sex and risk a pregnancy?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
You think 100% of people who were getting something for free will now pay for it or change their behavior?

If so, we disagree


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:44 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38622
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Seacrest wrote:

Not necessarily.

It could also lead to women taking more control over what they do.

And who they choose to do it with.

Im not optimistic on that. Hope I'm wrong.





Women have started figuring out already that they have been getting the raw end of the birth control debate for too long a time.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
rogers park bryan wrote:
You think 100% of people who were getting something for free will now pay for it or change their behavior?

If so, we disagree


I was actually talking about people who were paying for it before the mandate who would then have gotten it for free.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 57614
Seems to be a lot of misinformation out there regarding this birth control/ hobby lobby issue.

It does not seem to be about birth control so much as emergency contraception Plan B, Ella, and two IUD devices which require medical procedure. The other 16 drugs in this class are covered that are used as birth control or off label uses for women's preventive and maintenance health.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."


Frank Coztansa wrote:
I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.


Last edited by RFDC on Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:50 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38622
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
rogers park bryan wrote:
You think 100% of people who were getting something for free will now pay for it or change their behavior?

If so, we disagree


Do you think that people were getting this for free before yesterday?

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93297
Location: To the left of my post
Stop saying the employees weren't paying for it. The employees pay for healthcare just like the company does.

That is unless Hobby Lobby is one of the few places that doesn't take anything out of the paycheck for health insurance.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Seacrest wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
You think 100% of people who were getting something for free will now pay for it or change their behavior?

If so, we disagree


Do you think that people were getting this for free before yesterday?

Cheaper


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:57 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38622
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
You think 100% of people who were getting something for free will now pay for it or change their behavior?

If so, we disagree


Do you think that people were getting this for free before yesterday?

Cheaper


NO

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93297
Location: To the left of my post
RFDC wrote:
It does not seem to be about birth control so much as emergency contraception Plan B, Ella, and two IUD devices which require medical procedure. The other 16 drugs in this class are covered that are used as birth control or off label uses for women's preventive and maintenance health.
That wasn't the ruling though. Hobby Lobby may be nice enough to cover some kinds of birth control but why are we so willing to allow a corporation to dictate what is acceptable based on religious reasons?

I'm honestly surprised anyone is happy that this happened unless it's because you are anti-birth control and want to make it as difficult as possible.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
I'm honestly surprised anyone is happy that this happened unless it's because you are anti-birth control and want to make it as difficult as possible.


:salut:

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
RFDC wrote:
Seems to be a lot of misinformation out there regarding this birth control/ hobby lobby issue.

It does not seem to be about birth control so much as emergency contraception Plan B, Ella, and two IUD devices which require medical procedure. The other 16 drugs in this class are covered that are used as birth control or off label uses for women's preventive and maintenance health.


OK, so if that's the case, what is the actual arguement here?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Seacrest wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
You think 100% of people who were getting something for free will now pay for it or change their behavior?

If so, we disagree


Do you think that people were getting this for free before yesterday?

Cheaper


NO

I see.

Interesting that all three female justices dissented.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
Chus wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
I'm honestly surprised anyone is happy that this happened unless it's because you are anti-birth control and want to make it as difficult as possible.


:salut:


That's a pretty stupid thing to say.

And of course Chus salutes it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
SomeGuy wrote:
RFDC wrote:
Seems to be a lot of misinformation out there regarding this birth control/ hobby lobby issue.

It does not seem to be about birth control so much as emergency contraception Plan B, Ella, and two IUD devices which require medical procedure. The other 16 drugs in this class are covered that are used as birth control or off label uses for women's preventive and maintenance health.


OK, so if that's the case, what is the actual arguement here?

Seems like a slippery slope


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 56537
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
I'm honestly surprised anyone is happy that this happened unless it's because you are anti-birth control and want to make it as difficult as possible.


Image

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93297
Location: To the left of my post
SomeGuy wrote:
RFDC wrote:
Seems to be a lot of misinformation out there regarding this birth control/ hobby lobby issue.

It does not seem to be about birth control so much as emergency contraception Plan B, Ella, and two IUD devices which require medical procedure. The other 16 drugs in this class are covered that are used as birth control or off label uses for women's preventive and maintenance health.


OK, so if that's the case, what is the actual arguement here?
That the religious rights of the owners of a corporation should not be considered more important than the religious rights of an employee. Both pay for healthcare and one of them is effected much more than the other here.

Let's turn this around. Please explain why this was a good ruling or why it is good for anyone but those who want to push their religious agenda on others.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
rogers park bryan wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
RFDC wrote:
Seems to be a lot of misinformation out there regarding this birth control/ hobby lobby issue.

It does not seem to be about birth control so much as emergency contraception Plan B, Ella, and two IUD devices which require medical procedure. The other 16 drugs in this class are covered that are used as birth control or off label uses for women's preventive and maintenance health.


OK, so if that's the case, what is the actual arguement here?

Seems like a slippery slope


I wonder how this will effect Mac's access tovbirth control?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Stephen Breyer (the only male justice who dissented). “The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage,” Ginsberg wrote. “Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community,” she continued.

Ginsberg notes that an IUD without coverage costs a month’s pay for minimum-wage workers. And critics of the ruling say that because a federal work around hasn’t been developed yet, many of the women who currently work for places like Hobby Lobby have lost easy access to key family planning options and one of the most most effective type of birth control. Even after the gap is filled, it still may be cumbersome to acquire birth control. While some women are able to choose their place of employment taking health care into consideration, because of geography and economic restrictions, that’s not possible for all women.



As Ginsburg writes in her dissent, “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?”

In the majority opinion written by Justice Alito, he specifies that the ruling applies only to the contraceptive mandate, and states that it should not be understood to include to other insurance mandates, like those for blood transfusions or vaccinations. But Ginsburg notes that even if the Alito exclusion holds, there are other issues: “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude,” said Ginsburg.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
SomeGuy wrote:
Image

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
SomeGuy wrote:
Chus wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
I'm honestly surprised anyone is happy that this happened unless it's because you are anti-birth control and want to make it as difficult as possible.


:salut:


That's a pretty stupid thing to say.

And of course Chus salutes it.


What a stupid thing to say. Of course, it came from SomeGuy.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93297
Location: To the left of my post
rogers park bryan wrote:
In the majority opinion written by Justice Alito, he specifies that the ruling applies only to the contraceptive mandate, and states that it should not be understood to include to other insurance mandates, like those for blood transfusions or vaccinations.
This may be the worst part of the whole decision. They have to actively state that this ruling should not be applied to anything else. What makes this any different? Even they seem to know that this ruling is illogical since it shouldn't apply to anything else.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
Chus wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
Image


Swing and a miss. Your BA is troubling.

It was a black and white statement without much to it. Broad strokes as well, not shockingly it appealed to your limited intellect and you responded with an emoticon.

Not good. Not good at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Seacrest wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
The right didn't really pass muster legally :wink: . It happens all of the time :wink: :wink: :wink: . At an increasingly alarming rate though, for a Court with a poor grasp of the Law...as opposed to the politics they follow.


Fixed.

Damn Activist Judges...


I don't think you understand what happened here.

By executive order, the POTUS claimed that you had a constitutional right to have SOMEONE ELSE pay for YOUR birth control.

You are a lawyer I believe.

Kindly point to where you believe that the constitution gives you that right.


This strawman argument is beneath you. You clearly understand that this is about a group of hypocritically conservative, largely Catholic middle to older aged men have allowed their questionable religious beliefs (such as they are :wink: ) to trump the rights under law of lower income women. It is nothing more than judicial activism playing out to appease religious zealotry. It is nothing more than another chipping away at the fair & progressive policies that empowered many in this country over the last 50-70 years.

Just like the even more heinous union busting case decision that also came down...but is conveniently being ignored.

Kindly point to where the constitution gives you most rights you enjoy today. As noted countless times above you can't. Hell, this case is largely bs as I understand that Hobby Lobby actually provided most of the same insurance coverage until just before it was time to file their case & scream religious persecution (or as many here call it, playing the victim card). They didn't have a problem until yet another group of conservative religious zealots told them they (as the least restrictive type of legal actor here) should....for the greater right wing good. :)

Ask Scalia & his merry band of original intent con men where they get most of their logic and basis for finding heretofore imaginary constitutional standing for corporation's rights as a citizen or to permit the practice of their religious beliefs to the detriment of actual flesh and blood Americans. They can't, and therefore will long be known as a group of the worst Justices in American history.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:14 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38622
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Curious Hair wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
I'm honestly surprised anyone is happy that this happened unless it's because you are anti-birth control and want to make it as difficult as possible.


Image


Cause the Walgreens is too far to go to pick it up.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 275 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group