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: 44
49
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm



while everyone else doesn't get that choice.

Sure they do.
It is just a matter of opening up your wallet and paying for it.




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Just where do I go to buy an insurance pollicy for any price that will be accepted by ACA without being employed while not offering birth control???

I guess you are right though if I had the kind of money as Hobby Lobby and crew I could play the game and go through the court system all the way to the supreme court and get my exception also!


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



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

Sure they do.
It is just a matter of opening up your wallet and paying for it.


No, I'm not talking about the choice of BC. I'm talking about the choice of opting out of certain parts of the Health Care that they don't agree with.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Do you think it's right that a national law should arbitrarily cover/protect some women but not others, based on who their employer is?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Obviously RFRA applies in the Hobby Lobby case.



In 1997, part of this act was overturned by the United States Supreme Court. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Antonio wanted to enlarge a church in Boerne, Texas. But a Boerne ordinance protected the building as a historic landmark and did not permit it to be torn down. The church sued, citing RFRA, and in the resulting case, City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the Supreme Court struck down the RFRA with respect to its applicability to States (but not Federally), stating that Congress had stepped beyond their power of enforcement provided in the Fourteenth Amendment.[8] In response to the Boerne ruling, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in 2000, which grants special privileges to religious land owners.[10]

The Act was amended in 2003 to only include the federal government and its entities, such as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.[11] A number of states have passed state RFRAs, applying the rule to the laws of their own state, but the Smith case remains the authority in these matters in many states.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
What is this Republican OBSESSION with repeating over and over "pay for it themselves'???

They WERE paying for "it" for themselves, via their insurance benefit.

NOW, thanks to this unprecedented aping of a real court ruling, the Public Health systems will be forced to pay for these items.

It is, in fact, Hobby Lobby's action that moves the purchase from a person's own resources to the public dole.

So, I hope all that are continuously whining and harping on "entitlement" get that through your heads.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: butcherguy

Do you think it's right that a national law should arbitrarily cover/protect some women but not others, based on who their employer is?





About as right as it is for the ACA to cover condoms for women... but not for men.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: butcherguy

Just where do I go to buy an insurance pollicy for any price that will be accepted by ACA without being employed while not offering birth control???

I guess you are right though if I had the kind of money as Hobby Lobby and crew I could play the game and go through the court system all the way to the supreme court and get my exception also!





without being employed

I think I would worry about where my next meal was coming from before I worried about contraception, if that is the case.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Obviously RFRA applies in the Hobby Lobby case.



Nope, wrong again. RFRA has clearly been declared unconstitutional (see above).

A law cannot be constitutional and unconstitutional at the same time.

It has not been challenged at the Federal level. It now soon will be.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: butcherguy

Sure they do.
It is just a matter of opening up your wallet and paying for it.


No, I'm not talking about the choice of BC. I'm talking about the choice of opting out of certain parts of the Health Care that they don't agree with.

I am talking about a health care plan...
You can purchase any plan you want.
You don't have to limit yourself to getting it from an employer.
Just go purchase a plan.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

my meal is gonna be coming f rom my fridge as soon as I get up to mke it ...bought by my husband that according to religion is responsible for support!
now answer the question
where is the insurance policy that can be bought!



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
/sigh

Birth control is not a health issue FOR MEN because MEN DO NOT GET PREGNANT.

Birth control IS a health issue FOR WOMEN because WOMEN DO GET PREGNANT.

Great goodness, do some of you understand basic biology?

Pregnancy is a condition affecting a woman's body for nine months of her life. It can pose SERIOUS health risks.

Any measure to avoid pregnancy, or to early-abort an unwanted pregnancy, is absolutely a matter of women's health.

If you don't understand that, you're not trying to. Period.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Obviously RFRA applies in the Hobby Lobby case.



Nope, wrong again. RFRA has clearly been declared unconstitutional (see above).

A law cannot be constitutional and unconstitutional at the same time.

It has not been challenged at the Federal level. It now soon will be.



Hobby Lobby was a Federal case.

Not State affected or infringed.

It applies.



Good Luck with your new case.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I unashamedly support the ruling, being pro-life. However, I would still disagree anyway even from a non-religious standpoint. I understand the common argument of "it's a woman's body and a woman's right." I completely disagree, but understand the concept. However, as it is a woman's choice, it is therefore the woman's responsibility; NOT the employer's.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: butcherguy

my meal is gonna be coming f rom my fridge as soon as I get up to mke it ...bought by my husband that according to religion is responsible for support!
now answer the question
where is the insurance policy that can be bought!


ehealthinsurance.com



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy




About as right as it is for the ACA to cover condoms for women... but not for men.


So you feel left out because the ACA won't give you free condoms, therefore, women should be denied birth control. Smart!


Who's the victim now?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

That isn't the issue though. Look at it like this.

Because of the ACA everyone must get and pay for health coverage. If your employed you can do it through your employer. This goes for everyone across the board whether or not you like it. That's just how it goes, we are all in this together. The same goes with Income tax or Social Security or whatever. Like it or not, you are made to pay in to it.

So, either remove it or change it for everyone across the board as well or don't. This ruling allows for Special Religious Exemptions for certain "Persons" (not even real persons, but fictional ones at that), but not other Persons. Once again these Special Corporations don't have to do what everyone else has to do because they want to be Special. Just like they get Special Tax Breaks and Special Protections that others don't get.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: butcherguy




About as right as it is for the ACA to cover condoms for women... but not for men.


So you feel left out because the ACA won't give you free condoms, therefore, women should be denied birth control. Smart!


Who's the victim now?


Just pointing out the sexual discrimination by the people that wrote the ACA.
And now you are showing your sexism... who cares if it is fair for a man? Right?

Anyway, who is denying women birth control?
It is a woman that works for an employer that thinks it is her only option that is limiting herself to that particular plan.
edit on b000000312014-07-01T16:02:01-05:0004America/ChicagoTue, 01 Jul 2014 16:02:01 -0500400000014 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I have to admit that I feel like we're all getting played here. If Hobby Lobby's retirement plan is heavily invested in the very same company that produces the morning after pill, then Houston we have a problem.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
/sigh

Birth control is not a health issue FOR MEN because MEN DO NOT GET PREGNANT.

Birth control IS a health issue FOR WOMEN because WOMEN DO GET PREGNANT.

Great goodness, do some of you understand basic biology?

Pregnancy is a condition affecting a woman's body for nine months of her life. It can pose SERIOUS health risks.

Any measure to avoid pregnancy, or to early-abort an unwanted pregnancy, is absolutely a matter of women's health.

If you don't understand that, you're not trying to. Period.


Let me get this straight; You think that a woman who is too stupid to either not spread her legs or make the equally stupid guy not use a condom should force her employer who had nothing to do with the very intimate task of "doing it" pay for the birth control so she can sleep around and not have an unwanted pregnancy? Maybe this "serious health risk" otherwise known as pregnancy, ie, the carrying around of DNA of her creation, could have been avoided at her own cost? Nah. Too much to ask, asking for people to be responsible for their own actions. Yay not having consequences!



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join