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: 46
49
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Gryphon66

Hey Gryph! Good to see you again!

And who, exactly, is it that is being forced by the govt to follow the dictates of someone's religion? Key word there being "forced".


Well, since you asked ...

Yes, I've seen all the palliative arguments here that American workers could all just get a job somewhere else if we don't "like it" ... but, my point is ... why? The Hobby Lobby et. al decision allows employers to impose their religious beliefs on, today, offerings in a health insurance plan but, what tomorrow?

This decision, regardless of all the wingnut hype to the contrary, can stand as LEGAL PRECEDENT.

If I were only answering the question from the limited self-centered perspectives like most here about IUDs and morning-after pills, honestly, I wouldn't give a rat's patootie. I can't get pregnant, and well, let's just say it's not an issue otherwise.

But this ruling means more than that, and all of you know it. I care about the Constitution, and the separation of powers, the separation of church and state ... and, ....

.. and the hypocrisy is blinding, not to put to fine an edge on it, Bbracken ... good to see you too!




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   

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.


Carry on.


As your american, i'd expect that is ALL you would read haha

Invade first ask questions later?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

I suspected that the ACA was written with failure in mind.... just to get to a single payer system.


I think it was written to make us kill each other.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Being half the equation related to pregnancy, I feel I do have a say
Granted...perhaps not quite as much as the lady in question since I am not going to be carrying the child for 9 months. Much respect to the ladies for what they endure.....

On the other hand, I can have an opinion about the use of Nuclear weapons in Afghanistan even though I would not be pushing the button nor would I be on the receiving end of the nuke. Perhaps no one would pay attention to my opinion, but it is my right to express whatever inanity I choose to express as an opinion.

Back to half the equation...assuming, that is, it is done the fun way




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc

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.


Carry on.


As your american, i'd expect that is ALL you would read haha

Invade first ask questions later?


You are his American? How did that happen?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

I understand that a lot of men feel like they're "half the equation" and I do understand why ... but I can only respond that when the embryo/fetus/infant spends "half its time" in your body, then that might be true.

Until then ... /shrug.




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I too care about the Constitution.

The govt requiring us to purchase a product is patently unconstitutional. There was no question of that when it went before SCOTUS. SCOTUS sold us out by swallowing the govt's premise that Obamacare is a tax. Baloney on the face of it, baloney from any perspective. I don't know about you, but I don't get my bill for healthcare from the govt... I am paying for insurance provided not by a govt entity, but by a private entity, which is to say a for-profit organization. Hence I am required to purchase a product.

What kind of precedent is that setting?

Besides...is there a provision in the Constitution allowing the govt to require people to violate their religious beliefs? Is there a provision in the Constitution which prevents the govt from interfering with us exercising our religious freedom? Hmm...I know which is the answer to that question.

That was badly worded...but I gotta go for a bit.

Great seeing you again Gryph!



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

We are half the equation when the baby is made...lol

Note that I identified our impact/say as less than half regarding the rest of it. I expected better of you, Gryph.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just an FYI...I am not "neocon" and do not fit the description. I thought you knew that....



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I feel that 20,000 employees, over 500 stores is a huge mega corporation. Not a closely held mom and pop shop.

And, walk the walk and talk the talk? Please. The man is a major hypocrite.

He made his billions through Chinese slavery, on the backs of meagerly paid American unskilled labor. He's invested in big Pharma, and in the very drugs he claims are against his relgion. He's a lobbyist whose using his money and influence to have creation and biblical classes taught as truth and real history in public high schools!

He's a dangerous man that wants his legacy to be that he turned America fundamental Christian by force.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Bbracken:

1. I'm not debating ACA here in any way shape form or fashion. We've chatted about that before. Different topic.

2. I can't see where I refer to you as a neocon. If I did, please point out where, and I'll apologize. (???)

3. Sorry to "disappoint" you, but I'm really clear on the right of a woman to make all decisions about her own body. When I hear men talk about "their" contribution to a pregnancy or "their" baby ... I hear possession, and that makes it a matter of property, and no one is someone else's property.

Best,



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


His money his choice, it's that simple.




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Bbracken:

1. I'm not debating ACA here in any way shape form or fashion. We've chatted about that before. Different topic.

2. I can't see where I refer to you as a neocon. If I did, please point out where, and I'll apologize. (???)

3. Sorry to "disappoint" you, but I'm really clear on the right of a woman to make all decisions about her own body. When I hear men talk about "their" contribution to a pregnancy or "their" baby ... I hear possession, and that makes it a matter of property, and no one is someone else's property.

Best,





To your #3 your right it's her own body and she should make her own decisions. Oh yea and it is their baby.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677




See...your point would not be moot if the govt required employees of Hobby Lobby to remain working at Hobby and / or prevent those employees from taking contraceptives. But that is not the case. The employees are free to work elsewhere should they choose and they are free to purchase and use contraceptives, if they so choose.



Well, to me, that's an undue burden on women. Health care is health care, and contraception is an important and daily part of a woman's health care. Women shouldn't have to tip toe or maneuver around religious zealots to get the rights legally assigned them. And, what medications their doctor prescribes shouldn't be any of their employers beeswax.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

Wasn't addressing any of that to you. I am aware of common English usage that children "belong" to parents.

That doesn't mean it doesn't reflect male ownership of women and children.

/shrug



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm sorry but this is a public site and I will address who I want.




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


Women shouldn't have to tip toe or maneuver around religious zealots to get the rights legally assigned them.

Where does the Constitution declare a right for women to receive free birth control?

Free birth control is a government mandated entitlement, it is not a right. This decision says that, under certain specific conditions, religious liberty, which is a Constitutionally declared right, is not trumped by government mandated entitlement programs. As it should be.

The way that the left is spinning this is becoming laughable. After seeing the reaction on Twitter and the absolutely ridiculous posts by the president of Planned Parenthood, you'd think that this was the apocalypse. All that's left to figure out is if they are intentionally distorting this case to raise money, or if they truly are that clueless.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: drivers1492
a reply to: Bone75

Myself and a couple others have pointed this out a couple of times. Silence.......Like I said earlier, it's not against their faith apparently when it comes to investments.

What about Conestoga Wood Specialties?

Do they have similar investments?


I'm not sure as they aren't a high profile company in the case information isn't as available and under scrutiny like hobby lobby. I actually was unaware of the investments of hobby lobby as well but stumbled upon them by chance.
edit on 1-7-2014 by drivers1492 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: MsSmith



No doctor can force me to do any treatment or stop me from doing any treatment I choose.

Doctors, maybe... cops are a different story.

There are plenty of cancer treatments out there that can't be used legally. That is why people go to Mexico for some treatments.


Now you're reaching.

There are plenty of dangerous, ineffective, unproven, and/or untested treatments that can't be used legally because the of the damage they can cause. There is always someone willing to prey on the desperate and no doubt there would be hundreds of people pushing expensive 'treatments' without regard for consequence in the name of making a few bucks.

Multiple forms of birth control are effective, proven, and safe. Multiple procedures for abortion are effective, proven, and safe. Multiple types of non-hormonal birth control are effective, proven, and safe.

Cops can't force a random citizen to undergo or not undergo any medical treatment. In very very rare cases, a court can order someone to undergo treatment (although that's usually for minors stuck in custody battles and mentally ill people) but that is HARDLY comparable to telling all healthy, sane women everywhere that they can't prevent or terminate a pregnancy if they want to.

It amazes me what crazy excuses and analogies people will come up with to justify telling a total stranger what she can or can't do to her own body.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
You don't know me well enough to be so familiar and sarcastic with me- After all, behind this avatar, I very well may be a woman.




top topics



 
49
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join