It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hobby Lobby wins Supreme Court case, limits the ACA contraception mandate

page: 32
49
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SourGrapes




It's not birth control. Birth control is 'controlling oneself from getting pregnant'. Hobby Lobby wants to NOT participate in infanticide. They wish to NOT contribute to four forms of infant fetal murder.


This is a perfect example of bogus science retarding the mind of Americans. Birth control is not the same as self control. There is no application of birth control in ACA that "murders" infants or fetuses.


Saying it over and over doesn't make it true.


Disposing of a pregnancy AFTER conception is murder. You can believe what you want, and saying it over and over doesn't make what you believe true.

ETA: Birth control pills, condoms, and other forms of CONTROL prevent pregnancy. Isn't that enough?
edit on 30-6-2014 by SourGrapes because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jason88
And on the day the law just took a hard turn to support religious racism at the office, this just in: "Hobby Lobby Still Covers Vasectomies And Viagra" Source: www.huffingtonpost.com...

Women everywhere with a shred of dignity just jumped off the GOP ship... if their husbands will let them.


And hobby lobby still covers many forms of female contraceptives. There are just four they refuse to buy for their employees. Not sure what the GOP has to do with HL, last I checked the GOP doesn't run HL.
edit on 30-6-2014 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone
What is the point? My point is that Destinyones statement that Hobby Lobby employees or any other employee of a company that doesn't provide coverage for birth control to just go to Planned Parenthood, is not a viable option for many.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I'm not defending Hobby Lobby, but in fair balance (wish more people could do that), here is their official statement on Facebook:



Laura, we have no desire to take away women's rights, nor does the Green family have any desire to impose their beliefs on our employees. We currently cover 16 of 20 FDA-approved contraceptives as part of our comprehensive health care plan. The remaining four, which the Greens object to on the grounds that they may terminate life, are still readily available and our employees are free to obtain them. For more information about our case and why it's so important to us, please visit hobbylobbycase.com....


That said, it doesn't change the fact a precedent was just set to allow corporations to make a profit off religious intolerance. And to be fair again, it appears Hobby Lobby will be a good corporate citizen, it's the others who will figure out how to make money off hatred of others in the US.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jason88
a reply to: nenothtu

Today is definitely special - we just gave corporate America religious rights when their charter is to make money.


No, I wouldn't want to work in an environment like that - at all. But since I work in corporate America and have to provide for a large family, I'm not thrilled that owners of companies I may *have* to work for now have grounds to fire me because I don't adhere to their version of religion.



That's where you and I differ, then - the company has never been created that I would *have* to work for. Why could you not find another religion-based company (if you just had to work for one) more amenable to your own religion?

There is a vast difference between firing one for not adhering to a religion and simply not supporting one in decisions that religion doesn't agree with. I see no "grounds for firing" in today's decision - I see only grounds for not paying for an employee's recreational choices.




That, and I have daughters and wife - I really detest the door this decision (precedent) just opened to make their lives more difficult in the US. And I'm a fracking Christian - an okay one too (I think).



I'm not certain how that makes their lives "more difficult". My first wife was a bear for birth control, so I bought it - no problem. I stood on my own legs, never required someone else to buy it for me. It really wasn't that difficult. I just supported my own. More to the point, perhaps, is the question of why you would force your wife or daughter to work in a hostile environment if you view Christians as "hostile".



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

You're right - the GOP doesn't control Hobby Lobby but like Chick Fila - it's the same messaging (talking points) and voters on the right they identify with. So the GOP is calling this a 'win', but I have a feeling by tomorrow morning - they're going to be distancing themselves from it.
edit on 30-6-2014 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jason88
a reply to: thesaneone
I think it's solid to remind ourselves about freedom, and that we provide to women in the US - who yet again are being dictated to by insecure men.


I love this argument, the "if you aren't a woman you should have no say" argument. I guess doctors who haven't had AIDS or Cancer shouldn't have a say in their patients treatment. The argument smacks of stupidity. And again, women haven't been told anything by the US. In the US they can still purchase any contraceptives they want. In the US they can still get an abortion. But the fact that an employer can say "I'm not paying for that, it violates my beliefs" is somehow a negative reflection on the US? But it would be a positive reflection of the US if the government said "you have to do what we say, regardless of your beliefs"? You have some weird world views.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

You nailed it right on the head grey580! I was reading through all the posts and replies and was about to interject the same thing.

This ruling sets a scary precedent. Walmart is a closely held family owned business. What if they convert to a religion that views cancer as their god's curse on mankind and that the only proper way to heal it is prayer? Can they now refuse to offer insurance plans that cover cancer preventative care and treatment?



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: SourGrapes



Disposing of a pregnancy AFTER conception is murder. You can believe what you want, and saying it over and over doesn't make what you believe true.


Murder is legal term. Abortion, which was never an issue in this case, isn't murder by definition. If it were, abortion would be illegal. Contrary to public opinion, believing doesn't make anything true.



Birth control pills, condoms, and other forms of CONTROL prevent pregnancy. Isn't that enough?


So do Plan B and IUDs, and no, limiting options for some women and not others is NOT good enough.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jason88
a reply to: Dfairlite

You're right - the GOP doesn't control Hobby Lobby but like Chick Fila - it's the same messaging (talking points) and voters on the right they identify with. So the GOP is calling this a 'win', but I have a feeling by tomorrow morning - they're going to be distancing themselves from it.


I don't care what the GOP does, religious freedom is religious freedom is religious freedom. Yes, if Chevron wants to make their employees not talk to each other because they're the opposite sex, that's just fine. They won't be in business long.

The problem the left has, is that they view everyone as victims. They view people with jobs as victims of that job. Yet, most people with a job don't view themselves as victims of that job and realize they can get a job another place (in fact most people think they'll get another job somewhere else every few years).

ETA: The average worker stays at a job for 4.4 years: www.forbes.com...[e ditby]edit on 30-6-2014 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: moresco
a reply to: grey580

You nailed it right on the head grey580! I was reading through all the posts and replies and was about to interject the same thing.

This ruling sets a scary precedent. Walmart is a closely held family owned business. What if they convert to a religion that views cancer as their god's curse on mankind and that the only proper way to heal it is prayer? Can they now refuse to offer insurance plans that cover cancer preventative care and treatment?


Most plans only offer limited treatment methods for cancer (and many other diseases), so this precedent already exists. Before obamacare, employers had the freedom to choose what was offered in their plans (oh the humanity!). Small businesses usually had less comprehensive plans to keep costs low, while larger businesses covered almost everything under the sun. Freedom, it's crazy isn't it?
edit on 30-6-2014 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SourGrapes




It's not birth control. Birth control is 'controlling oneself from getting pregnant'. Hobby Lobby wants to NOT participate in infanticide. They wish to NOT contribute to four forms of infant fetal murder.


This is a perfect example of bogus science retarding the mind of Americans. Birth control is not the same as self control. There is no application of birth control in ACA that "murders" infants or fetuses.


Saying it over and over doesn't make it true.


Disposing of a pregnancy AFTER conception is murder. You can believe what you want, and saying it over and over doesn't make what you believe true.

ETA: Birth control pills, condoms, and other forms of CONTROL prevent pregnancy. Isn't that enough?


I'm confused ..what are we arguing about than? I think HL wants to take away your birth control pills ....yeah, those diaphragms, condoms, contraceptive sponges, jellies /cream , rhythm methods are the most unreliable ..highest risk of failure rate birth control methods ....that's why they have plan b. A high dose contraceptive that prevents ovulation .....NOT the same as the RU486 pill ...people get it confused all the time.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

You've used circular logic there, but I appreciate those who can twist words. It's an art form.

I'm not getting too personal by answering your questions thoroughly, just know I have bills to pay that require me to make money. I bought into the system. Stupid me, I trusted America.

The precedent has been set - if my God think women need to stay home then guess what - I'm firing them from my company. And companies change hands regularly - it's dangerous what just happened.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SourGrapes



So do Plan B and IUDs, and no, limiting options for some women and not others is NOT good enough.




How is HL limiting options for some women and not others? They don't want to provide four of the twenty contraceptives outlined in Obamacare. How is this limiting? Which is worse: limiting what you provide your (free to work where they want) employees or the government intervening in a (supposedly) free-to-work and free-to-provide-work market place? I'd say that eliminating four of the thousands of other strong-armed mandates are such a tiny miniscule pea in a pod that is dangerously controlling your and my future. Really? This is seriously arguing semantics in the realm of everything controlling this law (Obamacare) is forcing onto a once-free populace.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Jason88
a reply to: thesaneone
I think it's solid to remind ourselves about freedom, and that we provide to women in the US - who yet again are being dictated to by insecure men.


I love this argument, the "if you aren't a woman you should have no say" argument. I guess doctors who haven't had AIDS or Cancer shouldn't have a say in their patients treatment. The argument smacks of stupidity. And again, women haven't been told anything by the US. In the US they can still purchase any contraceptives they want. In the US they can still get an abortion. But the fact that an employer can say "I'm not paying for that, it violates my beliefs" is somehow a negative reflection on the US? But it would be a positive reflection of the US if the government said "you have to do what we say, regardless of your beliefs"? You have some weird world views.


Please step away from the computer. You missed the point. Take emotion out of it. It's not about birth control. A law changed to allow corporations to have religious freedom. When your wife is denied a job at a company that believes woman should be home raising kids, then please reassess the words you choose to type. You are stepping on landmines right now.

edit on 30-6-2014 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: paleorchid13


I'm confused ..what are we arguing about than? I think HL wants to take away your birth control pills ....yeah, those diaphragms, condoms, contraceptive sponges, jellies /cream , rhythm methods are the most unreliable ..highest risk of failure rate birth control methods ....that's why they have plan b. A high dose contraceptive that prevents ovulation .....NOT the same as the RU486 pill ...people get it confused all the time.


Well then, perhaps you should read the Court's decision and HL's response. Nowhere did they want to take away bc pills, or diagphrams, or condoms, or sponges and et.al. They don't want to pay for abortions and 'morning after' pills that abort fetuses after conception.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Jason88

You know what else is an art form? Fear mongering and you are on your way to becoming a great artist.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: paleorchid13
a reply to: nenothtu

Yes, you certainly have the right to eat sticks of butter, ice-cream and eat your cake too....



Why thank you for your kind permission! I had Rocky Road ice cream for supper this evening to celebrate your kindness towards me - it was great!




but when your arteries choke off your blood supply ...meh...wasn't it all your choice?



EXACTLY! by Jove i think he's got it! It's MY choice, and I'll do what I damned well please - and live with the consequences! MY choice, MY consequences, you don't get to share in them!




Why should you rack up HUGE, expensive medical bills in cardiac surgery ..rehab... when you brought in on yourself ?



EXACTLY AGAIN! You're on a roll! Why SHOULD I incur those charges? I shouldn't, and I assure you I will not! I will die when my time comes, with or without the ACA. We ALL die, and there is not a "health care"plan on Earth that will prevent my death - or yours. It's sure as hell certain that no INSURANCE plan, sold me at government gunpoint by a PRIVATE corporation, is going to prevent my death, either. It will come when it comes, and it will come on MY terms.

I've not been to a doctor in over 20 years, and that was only for a physical. I'm never going to one again, either. I can die just fine without some goddamned pill roller hastening it on.




Providing a medical screening, some advice...maybe a cholesterol reducing med ..may have prevented that huge medical bill ...but it was against my religion to provide you with preventative measures. Sorry ( I insert middle finger now)



You aren't the first to flip me off, and won't be the last. No cherries awarded to you on that one. I want none of your screenings nor your meds - YOU can have my share, OK? I'll take care of myself, thanks! I don't need you, your doctors, your insurance scams, OR government mandates to be able to look after myself as I see fit.




"The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women. If you give women some control over the rate at which they reproduce, if you give them some say, take them off the animal cycle of reproduction to which nature and some doctrine—religious doctrine condemns them, and then if you'll throw in a handful of seeds perhaps and some credit, the floor of everything in that village, not just poverty, but education, health, and optimism will increase. It doesn't matter; try it in Bangladesh, try it in Bolivia, it works—works all the time. Name me one religion that stands for that, or ever has. Wherever you look in the world and you try to remove the shackles of ignorance and disease stupidity from women, it is invariably the clericy that stands in the way, or in the case of—now, furthermore, if you are going to grant this to Catholic charities, say, which I would hope are doing a lot of work in Africa, if I was a member of a church that had preached that AIDS was not as bad as condoms, I'd be putting some conscience money into Africa too, I must say." --Christopher Hitchens




I don't know who this Christopher Hitchens character is, but he sounds like an idjit. He seems not to understand that women have ALWAYS, since the stone age, been in control of their reproductive rate. The rest is pure drivel - "seeds in the floor" and whatnot. He's not a farmer, I can tell that much, and seems not to have got around much, nor know much about women.

Probably ought not to quit his day job - philosophy isn't his forte.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jason88

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Jason88
a reply to: thesaneone
I think it's solid to remind ourselves about freedom, and that we provide to women in the US - who yet again are being dictated to by insecure men.


I love this argument, the "if you aren't a woman you should have no say" argument. I guess doctors who haven't had AIDS or Cancer shouldn't have a say in their patients treatment. The argument smacks of stupidity. And again, women haven't been told anything by the US. In the US they can still purchase any contraceptives they want. In the US they can still get an abortion. But the fact that an employer can say "I'm not paying for that, it violates my beliefs" is somehow a negative reflection on the US? But it would be a positive reflection of the US if the government said "you have to do what we say, regardless of your beliefs"? You have some weird world views.


Please step away from the computer. You missed the point. Take emotion out of it. It's not about birth control. A law changed to allow corporations to have religious freedom. When you wife is denies a job at a company that believes woman should be home raising kids, then please reassess the words you choose to type. You are stepping on landmines right now.


I am A-OK with that. Businesses should be free to hire whomever they please. Freedom, it's so scary, isn't it!? I mean what would we do if we had to just make our own choices. Who would want to live in that world???? /sarcasm



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

I know fear, and when laws change, yes I get scared because that's real life stability in the US. We are firmly out of the conspiracy realm and into a place that is un-chartered, and in the hands of those who's charter it is to make money at any cost. You have no idea, do you. Is this a political game? Because it's your life too.

Edit: I quit. The far right has lost its collective mind. All those years I, we, served our country honorably and a bunch of little boys and girls are playing politics with a nasty situation. America is lost...
edit on 30-6-2014 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
49
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join