It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 47
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:40 PM

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
This ruling sets a precedence such that a business owner's religion can exempt the business from obeying the law.

You mean the law (ACA) Obama decides to break (more than once)....?

...or some other law?
edit on 4640x6746America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by six67seven because: (no reason given)

edit on 2341x6723America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by six67seven because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:42 PM
a reply to: adjensen

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

In 1965 The Supreme Court, Griswold v. Connecticut, ruled that the Connecticut law outlawing the use of contrapction was unconstitutional.

In 1972, The Supreme Court extended that ruling to cover unmarried women in the case of Eisenstadt v. Baird.

In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman has the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy, up until the stage of "viability, in Roe V Wade

Free birth control is a government mandated entitlement,

Insurance is an entitlement? I disagree. Besides, the birth control isn't free, it's to be included in the insurance policy, at no extra premium charge. That's not to say that the consumer isn't paying for it.

it is not a right.

Yes it is.

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.

This decision in no way deprives a woman from her "right" to access to birth control, as specified by the ACA, at no extra charge. This ruling merely shifts the responsibility of access to all forms of birth control from the shoulders of the employer's insurance carrier to the tax payer.

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

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:48 PM
a reply to: thesaneone

slightly off topic but this is why i cant wait for artifical wombs,they would solve three major partisan issues of the usa in one fell swoop.

1.issue of abortion,if/when the artificial womb tech comes out the issue of abortions will become far less of an issue if not a non issue

example : a woman and a man are involved in an intimate relationship,the female becomes pregnant but does not want to carry baby to term the male wants to keep the baby but not make the woman carry it solution put the baby in the artificial womb and give the male the option of raising the child. woman does not have to carry the baby just to give it to the male and the male gets a biological related child he would not have had a normal option to get any other way.its win win for both,woman gets to not be responsible for a child she may not have wanted and a male gets a chance at his own biological offspring that would not have been available to him otherwise

issue and lesbian (lgqbt) etc want to have a child but not go through the long process of adopting or finding a surrogate(who could change her mind over the 9 months) or by envetiro fertilization. example a gay couple wants nothing more in the world but a child that shares dna with them so they either find a surrogate to start the baby off and then move it to an artificial womb or find a woman who was considering having an abortion and have her transfer her offspring into the artificial womb(so the surrogate would not have to carry the baby for the full 9 months) and then that way they get their kid with out any shared custody with surrogate or any other hurdles that can stop them occasionally from getting custody of the child .gays/lesbians get the kid they wanted win,conservatives who are against abortion get a win too (that whole sanctity of life thing they are all about) and a woman's body remains her choice=win(she was not forced to carry a baby she did not want to,but still got to not have to be a mother at a point in her life she may have not been ready for)and as long as the offspring isnt taken by force and given way with out her consent i see this as a win win win for every one.
thirdly gvie women and couples an option for what to do if neither of them want a child but are morally against abortion

example a hetero couple who both have jobs and who's life plans are not anticipating children have a pregnancy that was not planned the woman a christian is against abortions on moral/religious grounds and the husband either agrees or has the same opinion of not wanting children him self could then take the baby from her womb and place it into an artificial womb have the baby grown to term and then given to a family that for medical or age reasons etc can not have children of their own . woman who does not want child but does not want an abortion or to carry baby to term wins her rights were not infringed,pro lifers who are against abortions get to cheer and pat themselves on the back and say they saved one ,and the man who didnt want children but did not wish his wife to get an abortion(not that its his say anyways but still) gets out of having a child he did not want/could not provide for gets a win with his wife as neither of them bring an unwanted child into the world and they did it with out having to sacrifice their beliefs or ideals to do it .every one wins because of technology the both sides of the isle and genders will all get extera options with out loosing any with this tech

and the fourth while more a partisan issue could also be solved . example: some Christians/other religions and people from the right are against abortions in their entirely(and the law completely disagrees with them on this issue and isn't changing any time soon) where as the counter point is some women(not all but some) consider their bodies none of any ones business and that others/outsiders should have no say in the matter. the artifical womb would solve this by

1.letting women remain control of their reproductive organs,if they want the kid they are still free to have it and if they dont they will still be able to execute various other options ranging from either aborting it,putting it up for adoption,or by transferring and releasing custody/parentage rights and putting it in a artificial womb(under no circumstances should this choice be made for the woman) or by keeping it her far still win for females

2. from the rights perspective/MRA point of view while it would not completely eliminate abortions(usa is not the only nation who does them so eliminating them from the world will not be an option so they need to learn to deal with that)it would reduce (in theory) the amount of abortions performed(win for them) it would also give MRA and other individuals an option for if they wanted the offspring they could in theory get it placed in an artificial womb for raising of their own with out forcing the woman to carry the baby to term and enable men who wanted kids the option of getting custody this way (win for them as well and probably lead to a lot less bitching by MRA by getting rid of one or two of their core complaints etc)

now how this all relates to the hobby lobby case is that as technology advances the problems/hurdles we are seeing now will be erased in time(id say 25-50 years tops and all of this wont be an issue any more)as advances in reproductive science will hopefully negate all of these (pills to make a woman not get pregnant for a set amount of time,male birth control which has been sadly lacking as an option for males (other then condoms) and artificial wombs will eventually make all these partisan issues seem pointless

TLDR science in 20-50 years will have solved all of these issues hopefully and sorry for what ammounts to a rant wall of text little frazzled my nephew almost drown today(due to negligence on some one i hates part) so a little scatter brained

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:58 PM
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

This is a pretty interesting read I'm going to let this sink in for a bit.

again very interesting.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 06:14 PM
a reply to: windword

None of that is in favour of free birth control being a right. Free birth control is a privilege, granted by the government, it is not a right.

Rights and privileges are two different things, and you do not have a Constitutional right to free birth control.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 06:46 PM
a reply to: thesaneone

yeah there are more then a few hurdles still in the way,bioethics as while tests have been done on sharks and other animals successfully no one seems willing to allow it on humans yet so that's one hurdle.

Another would be some fearing that the sanctity of mother hood would be getting taken away in the sense that for all of our time as humans the women have born the burden/privilege of child birth and they could see that as taking something intrinsically theirs away from them,and some religions may have problems with that kind of science or think we have no right to meddle in gods natural plan so to speak,and could result in some weird alliances against it.

And of most paramount safety of the device's use(how reliable/safe the procedure is)not only to the child but the woman's as well will probably be its true crucible test it has to pass.

its something and it may just be a pipe dream but every since i heard about the Japanese team working on it ( ) i see it as one of the technology's that could end a lot of political and ideological division that plagues our nation,im pro choice my self but imagine a world where abortions are legally accessible options but not the only option for women and the potential males who may want to raise a child on their own but cant due to biologically not being able to. A world where a woman who does not want to have an abortion(faith based for example) does not have to choose between violating her belief system or bringing a child she can not afford into the world . And a world where parents regardless of their sexual preference can obtain and raise a child that they would not normally have the biological option to do its almost the perfect solution.

less abortions with out infringing on a woman's reproductive rights while increasing the odds of children ending up in wanting loving homes and less unplanned/unwanted pregnancy's.

every one wins

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 06:56 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh...I assumed in your reply to one of my posts that your reference to neocon was directed at me. Glad to see it wasnt!

To clarify takes 2 to procreate in the normal way. 2 humans: one male, one female. That means that a man's contribution is exactly half. FOLLOWING that is another story. One that I thought I clarified before. Apparently it was not sufficient. After the act, it is all the woman, with some help (hopefully) from the partner. This is why I stated "Much respect to the ladies". As far as responsibilities go, are you suggesting that following the act of procreation the man has no say, no responsibility? I really don't think you meant it to that degree.

Regarding possession, no human should "possess" another. However I do believe that the father should have some say, some responsibility in the child produced. However, if a man and a woman intentionally create a child, is it not "theirs"? Not so much in terms of property, but rather responsibility regarding safety, well being and rearing.

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

Addendum: If it is solely the woman's responsibility, the woman's choice, then why are men being extorted for child support?

Dont get me wrong, I do not think that way, but in extrapolating the thought process from the father has no say, no responsibility that tends to lead to questioning child support...

One cannot have it both ways. Or I suppose one can, but there is no logic there.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:18 PM
a reply to: windword

Except (big except) that contraceptives are not a "right". They are a product that is merely limited by a doctor's prescription.

The ruling does not prevent anyone from getting contraceptives. Just who pays for it.

Seems the question is whether the govt has the right to require a business to subsidize a person's purchase of a product. The Constitution says no.

The ACA was presented as a "tax" which resulted in SCOTUS ruling it was fine and dandy. Anyone with half a brain knows better.

Would it be lawful for the govt to pass a law requiring all companies and organizations to purchase bacon for their employees? Would we support Muslim's fight against such an unjust law? I know...ridiculous comparison which, oddly enough, hits pretty close to the mark.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:21 PM

originally posted by: bimyou
What if your "social, cultural and religious issue" involves denying black people work or promotions? Or if you're a Nazi and deny Jews promotions or jobs? Where does it end? People who are hard working and need a job all deserve the same equal rights regardless of your fear and religion getting in the way.

"What if"?

"What if" a frog had wings?

A: It wouldn't go along bumping it's ass on the ground.

Your straw man premise is irrelevant - because "it ends", to answer your question, at the end of the free exercise of religion being regulated by government. It does not entail race or promotions at all.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:23 PM
Some interesting meme's coming out.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:26 PM

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: bbracken677

Addendum: If it is solely the woman's responsibility, the woman's choice, then why are men being extorted for child support?

Dont get me wrong, I do not think that way, but in extrapolating the thought process from the father has no say, no responsibility that tends to lead to questioning child support...

One cannot have it both ways. Or I suppose one can, but there is no logic there.

If men don't want to be "extorted" for child support they should keep their zippers closed.

In extrapolating further, the final decision is the person whose body bears the burden and responsibility.

So you are totally correct. You cannot have it both ways.

Both parental units have decisions, on some levels equal, in the process, but those decisions are not necessarily simultaneous nor mutual. The man's decision is to unzip, perhaps with someone he really doesn't know all that well.

The woman has the final decision.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:28 PM
a reply to: beezzer

Whoa! Scary look, that one.

My nickname is bbracken677 and I definitely approve of the message lol.

(no...not running for anything, I just have a really odd sense of humor)

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:51 PM

originally posted by: paleorchid13

There are asexuals ....very rare though. Although not as desperate as airway, breathing, circulation , sustenance, is classified as a biological drive. Are you saying it's easy to fight attraction or sexual drive and that living as a ..say monk in the Himalayas is an easy task? Fighting it takes discipline and many people fail ...controlling sex has never worked ..nor will it ever .

So now it's demoted from a "biological need" to a "biological drive"?

I am far from an "asexual", and I'm telling you right now that it IS easy to fight it - so easy that there is hardly and "fight" involved at all. It only take an ability to control one's self, which appears to be sadly lacking in today's society regarding just about everything, not just sex.

Going to the extremes of Himalayan monkhood amuses me. Do you really think that in a survival situation sex is at the top of your priority listing? Carrying an argument to extremes doesn't make it valid, it just makes it extreme.

I don't care to "control sex", as in control what other folks DO, I just don't want to pay for their play. If they can't pay for it on their own, they might need to reassign their priorities.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:54 PM
a reply to: drivers1492

Okay so it appears the left wing dingbats have duped me again. I almost bought that crap because I'm very unfamiliar with how 401k investing works, but then I read this...

I realize that those on the left are always on the lookout for hypocrisy at all levels, but do Ungar, Redden, and Gallicho realize that they have just indicted any Christian with an index fund, or offering its employees the chance to invest their own dollars in one, as being necessarily a hypocrite if even one company within the fund does anything immoral? Or are Ungar, Redden, and Gallicho all just that incompetent about how 401(k) plans work – namely, that the investments and decisions within them are made by employees, not employers. The menu of choices is provided not by the employer but by the administrator of the plan, offering a wide range of mutual funds – which are most commonly indexes invested in the breadth of the market.


So basically the hypocrisy argument (concerning their retirement plan) is just another fine example of the left twisting facts to support their argument. Every single leftwing article I found states right there in the title that Hobby Lobby invests in contraceptives, which is more than just misleading, its a blatant freaking lie (which is something you folks do with no shame whatsoever).

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:57 PM

originally posted by: MsSmith

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.

It affects MEN's "reproductive rights", same as it does women's. It takes two to tango - virgin births are exceedingly rare. Aborting MY child affects MY reproductive rights, and would be an overall bad idea to boot. If it ISN'T my child, I could care less if you cook it and eat it after you've killed it. You can kill off your own kids at will, and THAT doesn't affect me.

Requiring a man to pay child support for a kid that only the woman has the power of life and death over is just plain wrong. Either give him all of his rights, or none of them, but don't go half-assed.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 08:01 PM

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: amazing

and why would people want to pay extra for something they don't need, so that someone else can have it?

To help others since we're all in this together. Ya know the same reason you pay in to other programs which you never use. Or give to charity or donate to some cause even though you don't benefit directly from it.

No, we are NOT "all in this together". I cannot recall the last orgy I went to that would make me responsible for an unwanted child. Maybe I was drunk, but I don't think so.

Therefore, you can leave me out of that statement.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 08:15 PM

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: FlyersFan

It's not the Business Model or Pay that they are complaining about. It's the BS reasoning and claims being made on their side of the argument that people don't like.

If the employee chooses to have an abortion on their own, they'll pay for it from the money they make from working at Hobby Lobby anyway meaning that Hobby Lobby will still be paying for it as indirectly as they were before this case. So the logic fails in that argument.

No, the logic is sound. Once HL pays the employee, it's no longer HL's money - it then belongs to the employee, to do with as they see fit. The insurance thing is a different matter, since HL is self-insured. The money they pay out IS theirs, until it's paid out.

The only difference is that now the employee has to spend more to do it than they would if it was covered and it's more of a hassle for them. This is just a way for some people to push others to make certain choices over others by claiming Religious Reasons. Even when those choices don't include them and people are just fed up with the Religious Views of Other People dictating the lives of others who may not even have the same Religious beliefs. It's the insistence upon Others Beliefs invading the Lives of others which is the heart of this.

No one is making their choices for them, they are only saying do what you want on your own dime, own your own choices and don't involve me in it.

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 08:18 PM

originally posted by: beezzer
Some interesting meme's coming out.

Because Progressives think and expect them to be free of charge.

Conservatives know they can *BUY* them somewhere else (and they'll taste better too !!)

edit on Jul-01-2014 by xuenchen because:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 08:26 PM

originally posted by: zackli
a reply to: Surefire

My religion states that anyone whose religion states that providing insurance is an affront to their god is an affront to my god and therefore needs to be killed.

By making laws stopping me from killing people, the government is violating my freedom of religion.

What is your religion? I'd like to know, because I want to study up on it's other tenets. If you can't come up with a name, which I can track to those specific tenets among others, then you are just blowing smoke out your ass, creating a straw man, and generally being ridiculous.

top topics

<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in