Hobby Lobby wins Supreme Court case, limits the ACA contraception mandate

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Hobby Lobby, et. al. has nothing to do with the Constitution ... read the ruling; it is entirely based on the flawed and unconstitutional RFRA.

It is a dire example of the political and ideological morass we find ourselves in this country.

The Constitution establishes rights for PEOPLE not LEGAL FICTIONS.

This claptrap will be reversed as soon as a reasonable and truly judicious Court is seated, probably into the next Presidential term.

Incorrect.

The Constitution establishes NO rights, not for anyone whether "natural" or "legal fiction" - it prevents the government from interfering in rights already existent. It does not establish rights, it binds government to recognize, and not interfere with, rights already there.

a reply to: beezzer

Some interesting meme's coming out.

As you know, Beez, I'm a centralist, neither Democrat or Republican. I voted for the Democratic Senator from Minnesota in the last election, when I also voted against Michelle Bachman (as opposed to voting for her opponent, lol.)

But it is nonsense like this that is pushing me away from the liberals. The claim that a company not providing free abortion drugs is "depriving women of their rights" and somehow is some sort of crisis that the left needs to rally behind, lest "religious zealots" seize the day is beyond ridiculous. After reading some of the posts on social media, I think that the lunatics have taken over the asylum, supplemented by people who are apparently incapable of understanding case law, and so vapid that they can't even bother to read an unbiased treatise on the case to understand the basic facts.

For Planned Parenthood and Americans United, this is a perfect fund raising opportunity. For me, it's a bit of an eye opener on those people that I supported in the last election.

i2.cdn.turner.com... pdf of ruling if people want to fact check

www.cnn.com... cnn take on the matter

www.forbes.com... and a forbes profile on the ceo/owner of hobby lobby

thinkprogress.org... from the lefts point of view

www.foxnews.com... article from fox news

originally posted by: TheCounselor
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.

First of all, any "tone" that is singularly directed at "you" is in your mind; as you so aptly stated, I don't know "you" from Adam's old housecat. If you have personal comments to make, may I suggest U2U? That reduces in-topic clutter of this nature.

My response was keyed to emphasize and perhaps exaggerate the repulsiveness of the average male attitude toward the subject. The fact that I addressed it to you is completely incidental and situational. I won't make the mistake again since you seem to have a thin skin.

Secondly, what does your sex that have to do with anything? Is that germaine to the topic in some arcane way? Did you have a point of disagreement? or additional facts to add?

a reply to: adjensen

Notice how we're all talking abut this and not;

ISIS
IRS
Benghazi
High Unemployment
Economic growth down by 2.9%

a reply to: adjensen

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.

Perhaps you didn't read my post. Free access to birth control itself IS a right. The contraception itself isn't free. It's required by law to be included within an existing ACA Health Care policy, at no extra premium charge. That's not to say that the cost isn't already figured into the premium.

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

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, I already provided you those sources. Even yesterday's ruling protected Hobby Lobby employee's right to contraception, even the contraception that Hobby Lobby refuses to provide. They ruled that the tax payer MUST pay for it. Gee! Sounds like it's a "right" to me!

Further, there's thing called Title X

The Title X Family Planning program was enacted in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Service Act (Public Law 91-572 Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs). Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services.
www.hhs.gov...

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Hobby Lobby, et. al. has nothing to do with the Constitution ... read the ruling; it is entirely based on the flawed and unconstitutional RFRA.

It is a dire example of the political and ideological morass we find ourselves in this country.

The Constitution establishes rights for PEOPLE not LEGAL FICTIONS.

This claptrap will be reversed as soon as a reasonable and truly judicious Court is seated, probably into the next Presidential term.

Incorrect.

The Constitution establishes NO rights, not for anyone whether "natural" or "legal fiction" - it prevents the government from interfering in rights already existent. It does not establish rights, it binds government to recognize, and not interfere with, rights already there.

I'm aware of that particular strain of libertarian thought. I just don't happen to agree with it or with you in this case. The first ten Constitutional amendments are called "the Bill of Rights" for a reason. Two centuries of political thought have echoed the idea that the Constitution establishes, in a particular place and time, certain rights and not others. It is clearly a list of those rights that are recognized and embodied in that Document as regards the body politic of the US citizenry.

You are welcome to use a different nomenclature as you choose, but in reality, it is a minor point without regress to archaic common law terms, which are off topic in this case.

a reply to: windword

Neither you, nor anyone else, has a Constitutional right to free birth control.

That's all this ruling is about. Your claim that women need to "dodge religious fanatics to receive their legally given rights" is invalid.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Gryphon66

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

What a meaningless comment! LOL

Of course you can address who you want; I certainly didn't mean to rub your ego the wrong way.

You're known for terse one-liners, but apparently, you don't favor them in return. There's a lesson there.

BUT, that's neither here nor there but is certainly off-topic. I always suggest U2U for personal commentary.

I found your statement to be obvious in regard to our cultural references. It seemed superfluous, as well as out of context. The reality of a human child that is born is different from a fertilized ovum, an embryo, or a fetus, which really is all that is under discussion here. A child becomes, technically, "theirs" when it is born ... while it is not a child, it is a part of the mother's body.

a reply to: adjensen

Neither you, nor anyone else, has a Constitutional right to free birth control.

Again, the Supreme Court and Title X disagree with you, and I take exception with your constant use of the term "free"! No one's making that claim.

That's all this ruling is about.

Really? This ruling was about women NOT having the right to birth control?

Nope. Not true. You're wrong.

SCOTUS squarely took the burden of access to women's legal rights to affordable birth control off Hobby Lobby and placed it on the tax payer! FACT!

a reply to: bbracken677

Bbracken, in brief, I wasn't talking about born children. When a child is born, or more precisely, when it becomes viable, he or she becomes a natural and legal person. Thus, a father has certain responsibilities toward the born child under our laws in terms of financial support. I can't speak to whether that is fair or not, but it is the law.

We were, however, talking about fertilized ova or early embryos at best. These are not children and are part of a woman's body, and thus, under any conceivably fair law in my opinion, her fundamental and sole concern. I would be the first to comment, however, that I would sincerely hope that when children are born they are indeed the pride and joy of their parents, who are both able to care for the child and give it all the love it deserves.

Sadly, that's all too often not the case.

Best,

a reply to: windword

Excellent post. However you still fail to provide anything supporting your assertion that FREE contraceptives are a right. No one, and I mean: no one has infringed on anyone's ability to get contraceptives. Not the ruling, not Hobby Lobby, not George Orwell. The SCOTUS ruling merely shifts the responsibility to pay for those contraceptives from the employer to the employee. Therefore the entirety of your argument is pointless.

BS of the highest order.

Isn't the bigger question here why an employer or the government has to know at all what a prescription is for? Why do they even get to pick and choose?

If you have prescription coverage and a doctor writes a prescription for a legal medication, it's none of anyone's business what that prescription is for.

This should be a whole lot simpler.

a reply to: Gryphon66

They are not part of the mother's body, they have their own bodies, but that's outside of the scope of this conversation anyways.

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: Gryphon66

They are not part of the mother's body, they have their own bodies, but that's outside of the scope of this conversation anyways.

Then why mention it, except to try to get a point in for your personal beliefs which are well known on this site?

This discussion has to do with birth control, which affects the fertilization (or prevention of same) of human ova, of drugs which cause spontaneous abortion of fetuses, so yes, while "right to life" is NOT a part of this discussion, matters which affect a pregnant woman's body certainly are.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: thesaneone

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

Yep. And we think that Chemo should be covered and all other medication that may have "side effects". As well, the religious righties can keep their paws off our sodas, candy, fast food french fries, cigarettes, booze and medical weed too!

"Religious righties"?

Look at your list again.

With the exception of medical marijuana, it's the heathen LEFTIES who are trying to ban all those things!

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Isn't the bigger question here why an employer or the government has to know at all what a prescription is for? Why do they even get to pick and choose?

If you have prescription coverage and a doctor writes a prescription for a legal medication, it's none of anyone's business what that prescription is for.

This should be a whole lot simpler.

Because, obviously, the right to privacy is only important when certain parties want it to be. Women don't have a right to privacy regarding their own healthcare and their own bodies, because that is supposedly trumped by the superstitions of a legal fiction. Right?

/sarcasm off

EDIT: Not to mention that the supposed "participation" on the part of the legal fiction "Hobby Lobby" in any decision a woman makes about her healthcare requires a level of predicting the future that is frankly impossible. "Hobby Lobby" doesn't and won't and shouldn't know how its employees are choosing to use their healthcare. None of "its" business. So therefore, this supposed "participation" sinks to the level of thought-crime, if HL "thinks" someone is using birth control it doesn't like, it happened.

The whole mess is so ludicrous it doesn't even make sense when one says it out loud.

Thought-crime is okay if it's pursued for Jesus though.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: windword

Excellent post. However you still fail to provide anything supporting your assertion that FREE contraceptives are a right.

Well, these people seem to think it's true!

In January, the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) issued a mandate
under the Affordable Care Act (also known
as “Obamacare”) that requires all employer
health plans to provide free contraceptives,
sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs,
regardless of any moral or religious objections.

In January, the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) issued a mandate
under the Affordable Care Act (also known
as “Obamacare”) that requires all employer
health plans to provide free contraceptives,
sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs,
regardless of any moral or religious objections.
standupforreligiousfreedom.com...

If I have given the impression that I believe that the ACA is supposed to hand out free birth control, I apoligize, I never meant to infer any such thing. Contraception is mandated as part of the ACA, and the ACA isn't free, is it?

No one, and I mean: no one has infringed on anyone's ability to get contraceptives. Not the ruling, not Hobby Lobby, not George Orwell. The SCOTUS ruling merely shifts the responsibility to pay for those contraceptives from the employer to the employee. Therefore the entirety of your argument is pointless.

That's not true. There are countless clinics that have been shut down. Please Google "The Push to Defund Planned Parenthood" and then tell me that no one is infringing on anyone's ability to get contraception.

We have yet to see the complications, obstacles and extra expense this ruling will cost women.

BS of the highest order.

Yep! That ruling WAS BS of the highest order!

PLEASE~~~~~~




Can we keep the left and right generalizations and name-calling out of this discussion?

Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.

double post