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: 39
49
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




Don't really need people from other countries telling the US how to resolve OUR problems.


As for "gold diggers" comment. The truth really is painful sometimes.




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: windword
I kind of fail to see how it matters weather or not this type of bc can cause an abortion or not

Some religions will include all types of birth control even condoms in the list that they find offensive.
and the spirit of the decision is based on the idea that the gov't cann't force a company to buy a product for another that runs contradictory to their belief.
even if the supremes restricted the decision to just this one case and the birth control items just to a small list. I don't see how they could justify notruling in like manner when the next case comes along with their own trespassed beliefs..






posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
tried to edit to correct a few mistakes ended up quoting it instead post is a few posts from here



Just happened to me, messed it up so bad I will have to rewrite later today.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

I think you mean "third world" . . .

And the average intelligence of it's business and political leaders is why . . . After all, they don't fall from the sky (well, I guess some people believe that, but), they are simply a small sample size of the general population.

Your quote above about "tiny babies in the womb" and the population's view about the validity of scientific fact over superstition, sadly, is not an "exception". It is the norm . . . I've already braced my son for "ex-pat" status.

The only thing I'll miss leaving behind is my fine collection of firearms . . .



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Fact : If your almighty science could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the drugs in question do not effect a fertilized egg's ability to implant in the uterus, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The science involved is all theory on both sides of the argument, nothing conclusive.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman

Don't really need people from other countries telling the US how to resolve OUR problems.


Yah, because the US is known for keeping our noses out of other countries problems. It's good that we walk the walk and talk the talk so well isn't it???



As for "gold diggers" comment. The truth really is painful sometimes.


And who's truth would that be???



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: windword
I kind of fail to see how it matters weather or not this type of bc can cause an abortion or not is relevant.

Some religions will include all types of birth control even condoms in the list that they find offensive.
and the spirit of the decision is based on the idea that the gov't can be forced to buy a product for another that runs contradictory to their belief.
even if the supremes restricted the decision to just this one case and the birth control items just to a small list. I don't see how they could justify ruling in like manner when the next case comes along with their own trespassed beliefs..




I agree.
Everything that I have heard coming from legal people says that if a closely held company finds religious objection to any birth control methods other than those four listed in the suit, they will have to go to court to have their claim upheld.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: solomons path
Sweet . . . I love this decision.

As an atheist business owner, I will no longer be paying "holiday pay", closing up, or honoring "requested days off" for "Christmas".

Mandates be damned!!

Whoo-hoo!!


Many businesses are open on christmas, it's not mandated you close. Holiday pay is not mandated either (at least federally). Nor do you have to honor requests for any day off, just be prepared to lose employees by the drove.


I never claimed I was mandated to provide those things. Just that I will no longer be paying for those things that go against my personal beliefs. What's good for the gander and all . . .

My line about mandates was specifically about the court decision.

And I'm not worried about "losing employees by the droves" . . . I'm sure the can move to the nearest town that houses a HL and find work there. Or anywhere really, I hear work/jobs in the U.S. is/are at a surplus . . . I'm sure they won't have trouble finding one. I reside in a right to work state, so I don't have to wait for them to leave. All they have to do is "call-in sick" on Dec. 25th and I'll be happy to show them to the nearest DES office and turn them into the "gold diggers" they despise. Plus, I'm told there are "thousands of immigrants" coming to this country everyday, I'm sure they will be happy for the work.

I'm mean if the SCOTUS can rule it's okay for one corporate leader to be an @$$#*% based on their religious beliefs . . . why can't we all?
edit on 7/1/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/1/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm


Yah, because the US is known for keeping our noses out of other countries problems. It's good that we walk the walk and talk the talk so well isn't it???


Hey, I am all for not meddling with other countries. Seems that the Govt not only wants to control other countries, but OUR lives as well.

Don't really see a need for a 3rd group to control.



originally posted by: mOjOm

And who's truth would that be???


Everyone's.

Show me where this isn't true.

Sandra Fluck is the prime example.

Same with this situation.

Moan and biotch because a company now doesn't HAVE to pay for something.

edit on 1-7-2014 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: windword

Fact : If your almighty science could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the drugs in question do not effect a fertilized egg's ability to implant in the uterus, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The science involved is all theory on both sides of the argument, nothing conclusive.


The fact of matter is, the contraceptive methods in question prevent pregnancy. That is a fact and is NOT up for debate. Pregnancy, legally and medically occurs upon implantation.

The methods in question, as well as some not mentioned in the suit, CAN alter the uterus lining, making it inhospitable, Thus preventing pregnancy.

The argument over the value of the "life" of a fertilized egg, before it implants, is a separate debate.

This SCOTUS case wasn't about science, it was about "sincerely held beliefs".



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy




Everything that I have heard coming from legal people says that if a closely held company finds religious objection to any birth control methods other than those four listed in the suit, they will have to go to court to have their claim upheld.


Not true. SCOTUS ruled that ALL birth control falls into the exempted category. Not just those 4 methods. Employers, that qualify, will not have to to go to court again to deny birth control, any birth control coverage.






edit on 1-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: windword
and how some people's and groups' religious beliefs should be protected
others not so!!!



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Hobby Lobby provided health insurance to their employee's before being forced to, they covered contraceptives before being forced to, and they've paid their employees above minimum wage before being forced to. If anyone is to blame for the layoffs in your state, it is the democrats who shoved a poorly conceived and constructed law down our throats simply because they could.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: butcherguy




Everything that I have heard coming from legal people says that if a closely held company finds religious objection to any birth control methods other than those four listed in the suit, they will have to go to court to have their claim upheld.


Not true. SCOTUS ruled that ALL birth control falls into the exempted category. Not just those 4 methods. Employers, that qualify, will not have to to go to court again to deny birth control, any birth control coverage.






I am not finding that anywhere. The legal beagles on the talking head shows are saying differently.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: butcherguy




Everything that I have heard coming from legal people says that if a closely held company finds religious objection to any birth control methods other than those four listed in the suit, they will have to go to court to have their claim upheld.


Not true. SCOTUS ruled that ALL birth control falls into the exempted category. Not just those 4 methods. Employers, that qualify, will not have to to go to court again to deny birth control, any birth control coverage.






Even so, I don't know why women have their panties in such a wad. Where have they been all along? Men get no birth control coverage by the ACA rules... when women do. Kind of sexist, isn't it?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: butcherguy




Everything that I have heard coming from legal people says that if a closely held company finds religious objection to any birth control methods other than those four listed in the suit, they will have to go to court to have their claim upheld.


Not true. SCOTUS ruled that ALL birth control falls into the exempted category. Not just those 4 methods. Employers, that qualify, will not have to to go to court again to deny birth control, any birth control coverage.






Even so, I don't know why women have their panties in such a wad. Where have they been all along? Men get no birth control coverage by the ACA rules... when women do. Kind of sexist, isn't it?


You are correct. Does anyone know if employers must provide free vasectomies? If not that is gender discrimination.

Clearly aimed at keeping men down and in their place and denying them control over their own bodies.

Employers will soon be required I'm sure to provide the male pill for men once the FDA approves it.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy
you want the privilege to ingest toxic chemicals to avoid impregnating women also at no cost??
I don't really think you do. And well are there any drugs on the market that enable you to?? No??? That's probably because it's the men (who really don't want that responsibility placed on them) that have been the main players to bringing them to market!



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: butcherguy




Everything that I have heard coming from legal people says that if a closely held company finds religious objection to any birth control methods other than those four listed in the suit, they will have to go to court to have their claim upheld.


Not true. SCOTUS ruled that ALL birth control falls into the exempted category. Not just those 4 methods. Employers, that qualify, will not have to to go to court again to deny birth control, any birth control coverage.



I am not finding that anywhere. The legal beagles on the talking head shows are saying differently.


Source please!


The Supreme Court delivered a blow to universal birth control coverage on Monday, ruling that closely-held corporations can refuse to cover contraception in their health plans for religious reasons.

www.huffingtonpost.com...


SCOTUS did not review which methods can or can't be denied. They ALL can be denied if the employers sincerely believes they oppose his/her religious views. That includes Catholics, who oppose ALL forms of birth control.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: butcherguy
you want the privilege to ingest toxic chemicals to avoid impregnating women also at no cost??
I don't really think you do. And well are there any drugs on the market that enable you to?? No??? That's probably because it's the men (who really don't want that responsibility placed on them) that have been the main players to bringing them to market!



So you admit that those pills you are begging for are toxic and you want everyone to pay for your toxic chemicals?

The entitlement mindset is just crazy



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
I have never understood how pro teen pregnacy was Christian value. Then again the entire anti birth control thing seems be slowly abandoned by the major Christian religions (mostly because its members just ignore it) so I suppose in a decade it will not matter anyway.


Do you get your information from MSNBC or something?

Hobby lobby still offers many forms of birth control, just not abortion pills. No plans cover abortions, not even obamacare.

Of course baby murderers are still free to buy their own abortion pills for eight bucks or go to Planned parenthood where they hand them out like candy and not lose their job at Hobby Lobby.




Imagine that a woman starts work at Hobby Lobby tomorrow morning — July 1. She joins Hobby Lobby’s health care plan. It includes access, copay-free, to the following categories of FDA-approved birth-control:
Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants

What Hobby Lobby will not cover are four contraceptive methods that its owners fear are abortifacients:

Plan B (“The Morning After Pill”)
Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”)
Copper Intra-Uterine Device
IUD with progestin


www.nationalreview.com...




top topics



 
49
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join