It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Hobby Lobby, et. al. has nothing to do with the Constitution ... read the ruling; it is entirely based on the flawed and unconstitutional RFRA.
originally posted by: Dfairlite
originally posted by: MsSmith
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.
You really don't see the difference between a man telling a woman what she can and can't do with her own body and an educated doctor treating a patient for cancer? Seriously??? LMAO!
To start, cancer and AIDS are both diseases. Despite what you may believe, being a woman is not. There's always a possibility anyone could develop a disease, but there's no possibility that a man will ever develop a uterus. Second, while a doctor can suggest treatments, he can't force you to undergo or not undergo any treatment you choose. You have the final say, not your doctor, which is true of almost anything else when it comes to a man's body. You can decide not to undergo chemo and use holistic medicine instead. Right now as we speak, women in this country can't undergo a procedure to terminate an unwanted pregnancy because some man somewhere decided those women don'r have the right to make decisions about their own body.
No matter how hard you try, you cannot become a biological woman if you are born a man. So nothing a woman can or can't do to her body could EVER affect a man, including men who undergo gender reassignment, SO NO, MEN DO NOT GET A SAY IN ANY WOMEN ONLY ISSUES. Please tell how how taking birth control or getting an abortion has any affect on any man anywhere. You could argue that it has an effect on the potential fetus, but since you aren't that fetus and that fetus's existence has no effect on you (outstde of paying child support if you happen to be the father), you still have no right to tell any woman what she can and cannot do to her own body on her own time. Ever.
I don't see a difference between an educated man telling you what to do for cancer and an educated man telling you what to do for pregnancy. No, I don't see that difference. You want to pretend that being a woman is some unknowable phenomenon to anyone but a woman, when really it's not anymore unknowable than a doctor who has never had a disease. No womanhood is not a disease, I never implied that, if you thought I was then you misunderstood the point.
No man can force a woman to do or not do anything, to suggest otherwise is to be ignorant to the mindset of women. Unless you do what that guy in ohio did to those women he had locked in his basement. Then again, he was charged with five counts of murder for the unborn babies... oh wait... they're not people... so how does that work? Anyway, what the men and women in congress do (which are voted in by women, as well as men) is represent the interests of their constituents. NEWS FLASH: Most women oppose abortion (according to gallup) so by lumping all women into this group that is monolithic and supports abortion, again, shows your ignorance. Also, you must have missed the memo, you aren't allowed to have women's only issues, just like we aren't allowed to have men's only issues, clubs, etc.
And it's not an argument that it affects the unborn baby, it's a fact. It's the whole reason for the procedure. It's not even a procedure, it's murder. If your child (born) dies in their sleep, it's not murder but a tragedy, but if you go in with a saw and hack them all to pieces, it sure is murder. The same goes for your unborn children. Just because you deem them lower than human, doesn't make it so. Just like it didn't make slaves lower than human when people believed they were, and could kill them. Just like it didn't make mormon's lower than human when people believed they were, and could kill them.
There is no argument that because the mother is sustaining them while she's pregnant ... because that would make post-birth abortion OK (babies rely on their mothers sustenance, long after birth). There is no argument that the mother can't afford them, there's adoption. There's no argument that because they are "not viable"... because eventually they'll be able to grow them in a test tube, which will make your view now look as barbaric as the culling of children in Sparta.
If you don't want to get pregnant, there are numerous ways to prevent it, from drugs and devices, to surgeries and abstinence. There is no excuse for murder.
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Daedalus
There are many, many companies standing behind Hobby Lobby that will now get the same protection. And unless you can point me to where in the opinion it points out select birth control methods that can't be force upon them I have the idea as far as hobby lobby is concerned they will just refuse to include just these few methods.
Some of those other businesses more than likely will have beliefs that will cause them to refuse all methods! I believe the ruling was that the gov't couldn't force the companies to birth control.. which could mean some or all!!
No doctor can force me to do any treatment or stop me from doing any treatment I choose.
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: butcherguy
so where in the decision does it restrict what kinds of birth control can be refused because I didn't see it must of missed it it is kind of alot to read
I believe what it says it that the gov't cannot force a business to have birth control in their coverage.
The Department of Health and Human Services set the contraception requirement based on an Institute of Medicine study that recommended prescription contraception and services, including all FDA-approved methods of contraception, be included as preventive services for women. Most health plans had to cover contraceptive services for plan years beginning on or after Aug. 1, 2012, according to HHS. Grandfathered plans that had not changed significantly after the health law passed do not have to offer preventive health care – including contraception – without cost-sharing.
originally posted by: xuenchen
originally posted by: Kali74
Single payer would fix so much wrong associated with health care.
Maybe the wizards of wisdom can figure it out.....
It might take $3 trillion or so.
I bet even corporate tax increases won't come close.
National Health Expenditures 2012 Highlights
the government has a vested interest in the population not increasing. Even if it isn't the government's responsibility, it is for the good of society that population growth is curbed.
In Human Life International’s (HLI) new documentary, “Central and Eastern Europe: A Return to Life,” we examine the dramatic situations unfolding in Hungary and Poland, two nations that were decimated by the most destructive ideologies in history, Nazism and Communism. Both countries had abortion forced on them by the Communists over six decades ago. And while the people of both nations on occasion rose up against their oppressors, it wasn’t until Communist Russia began to crumble in 1989 that they were able to begin charting their own course.
It’s all bunk. The “population bomb” never exploded. Instead, statistics from around the world make clear that since the 1970s, we’ve been facing exactly the opposite problem: people are having too few babies. Population growth has been slowing for two generations. The world’s population will peak, and then begin shrinking, within the next fifty years. In some countries, it’s already started. Japan, for instance, will be half its current size by the end of the century. In Italy, there are already more deaths than births every year. China’s One-Child Policy has left that country without enough women to marry its men, not enough young people to support the country’s elderly, and an impending population contraction that has the ruling class terrified.
an impending population contraction that has the ruling class terrified.
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: amazing
Contraceptives are a wonderful thing and should be a right in any healthcare coverage especially in this day and age. Especially in the first world country that we live in. The supreme court made a really bad decision today.
They only targeted the abortion drugs.
Abortion was the issue.
Via RightwingWatch, it seems that talk show host Kevin Swanson has talked to “some doctors” who believe that if you take birth control, tiny little dead babies are simply hanging around, embedded into the lining of your womb.
Swanson: I’m beginning to get some evidence from certain doctors and certain scientists that have done research on women’s wombs after they’ve gone through the surgery, and they’ve compared the wombs of women who were on the birth control pill to those who were not on the birth control pill. And they have found that with women who are on the birth control pill, there are these little tiny fetuses, these little babies, that are embedded into the womb. They’re just like dead babies. They’re on the inside of the womb. And these wombs of women who have been on the birth control pill effectively have become graveyards for lots and lots of little babies.
Now, I’m not usually one to feel the need to go all Biology 101 and point out that even if somehow there were tiny mini babies stuck in your uterus, they would come out when you menstruate since THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT OF MENSTRUATION. Because obviously, whatever school Swanson attended must have not only skipped over the entirety of sex ed, but likely a full spectrum of basic science classes as well.
The SC ruling today was only over 4 of those forms of birth control.
originally posted by: macman
originally posted by: SearchLightsInc
Why am i angry about this decision even though im (thankfully) not american?
That is all I needed to read.