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: 41
49
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
So tubals and birth controls are paid for women, but vasectomies and birth controls are not paid for men? That's not right. It should be the same for all ... both men and women.




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: butcherguy




I don't see anything that you are saying in the article.


I didn't see any citation from you refuting the claim. Do you think that the 5 Catholic men, on the Supreme Court, are responsible for a ruling that discriminates against Catholic employers with objections? Is this ruling for protestant fundies only?

Nope. This ruling allows for the denial of any and all birth control by a qualified employer.





AND USA Today....


The Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case doesn't currently affect the birth control methods that are most commonly used.

USA Today

There you go.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

FF, the object was not to make sure women are covered. It was to get the woman vote.

Des



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

I agree with you entirely on this. Men are nothing special and we can just pay for vasectomies as well as women paying for their B/C procedures. They're both elective and optional to remove personal responsibility from the equation of action and consequence.

I really have no problem with that, either. It's not a bad idea, especially for some who have nothing to speak of in self control.

Still... I think that as elective and not required for health? It can be an option paid for personally.
edit on 7/1/2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000



I agree with you entirely on this. Men are nothing special and we can just pay for vasectomies as well as women paying for their B/C procedures. They're both elective and optional to remove personal responsibility from the equation of action and consequence.

I had a vasectomy.
It is an elective surgery.




to remove personal responsibility from the equation of action and consequence.

It was my responsible choice to have the surgery. I have four children and didn't plan to have more. I like to think that this showed responsibility on my part.
Oh, and I paid for it.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I am also not saying that obamacare isn't full of mistakes!
Matter of fact obamacare is just one big mistake!!
Another big mistake would be to have this decision esculate to the point where all birth control is left out of ACA coverage all together. And I fail to see the difference between the employer who is forced to offer a plan as a benefit and an individual being forced to buy the plan and well what can we say about all those taxpayers who are being force to pay for it through the social systems?
This whole thing is going down the wrong path!
Instead of focusing on what healthcare should be provided to whom by whom
we should instead be concentrating on finding a way where the person recieving the care can be held responsible for that care without any second party involved including the gov't and employer.

Till then everyone is pretty much limited in their actions by the system we have now in much more than just birth control!



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

He cannot use his Executive Orders to bypass SCOTUS. SCOTUS would immediately slap that crappola down.

I do not think he (or the Dems) would want to piss SCOTUS off to the degree that action would.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

SCOTUS should have found Obamacare unconstitutional to begin with. I would not doubt if they chose to revisit it at some point in time.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
FYI. The SC ruling is optional for employers.

Aside from all of the illogical arguing and whining I would like to point one thing out.

What idiotic employer would deny a women BC? Now take just 20 seconds to logically think about this.

If a workforce was predominantly female would we want them pregnant, and then possibly leaving after having a child?


Where does entitlement end and where should it begin?







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



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Hobby Lobby is so hypocritical !!




Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection


www.forbes.com... ming-religious-objection/


No wonder the GOP is trying to distance themselves from this big pile of dog****!

Even Hobby Lobby is now making excuses.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

I just tried your link twice, but it's a 404?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Since these were investments into Pharmaceutical companies, I wonder if they ever put 2 and 2 together?

Investing in Pharma companies is not quite the same thing as being represented above. It is presented above as if they invested in the products themselves instead of the companies responsible for them.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: olaru12

I just tried your link twice, but it's a 404?



try this one.

www.forbes.com... ming-religious-objection/



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

You are still not understanding. The ruling allows for Hobby Lobby, et al, to opt out of the ACA contraception mandate. It didn't rule on to what degree it could opt out, or what kind of birth control it could pick and choose to deny. SCOTUS ruled on belief, not science.


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



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Still getting a 4-0-Forbes.
Can you post a paragraph or two for us?
Maybe it's my browser, idk.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: olaru12

Since these were investments into Pharmaceutical companies, I wonder if they ever put 2 and 2 together?

Investing in Pharma companies is not quite the same thing as being represented above. It is presented above as if they invested in the products themselves instead of the companies responsible for them.


Wouldn't you thin HL would research their investments as to be in line and religious in concert with their public relations stance?

Hypocrites all....!!

This also doesn't reflect well on their supporters either.
edit on 1-7-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: MOMof3
Congratulations! And to the Muslims, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses. Sharia law for you daughters and sons in the workplace, is on its way.


That's right every form of religious discrimination is now ok. All you have to do is say my faith says it should be this way.


Honestly did you even read the ruling or you just jumping in here to scare people?


i heard this same line when the voting rights act was basically neutered....it's a great day to be corporate and/or a wealthy white male..... screw those women, the godless, the brownies, the retched poor...you don't belong in America, get the hell out.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

This is the article.

Forbes linky



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: butcherguy

You are still not understanding. The ruling allows for Hobby Lobby, et al, to opt out of the ACA contraception mandate. It didn't rule on to what degree it could opt out, or what kind of birth control it could pick and choose to deny. SCOTUS ruled on belief, not science.


Look at this way....

The plaintiff is asking for a specific thing.
The court rules on that specific thing.
Would you say that the court also ruled on medicinal marijuana in their opinion also?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: drivers1492

Bingo! Thanks!
Here's the bit from Mother Jones, that some were trying to say was bs:

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).


Repulsive scum.




top topics



 
49
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join