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

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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?

I don't know of any average males that would have responded in the way you did in your original post in response to my question. I believe a great deal of average males respect a woman's intellect enough not to speak of her in the way you wrote in your original post.

Adding to the conversation: I asked people if they had queried the women whom this decision actually affects. You provided an inadequate answer. You did not go to the store and question the women, you decided to be flip and funny and provide a caricature of whom you thought was behind my avatar.
You were wrong.
Now, What do the women that work for Hobby Lobby, (and now, EWTN), think of this decision? They have the intellect and fortitude to answer for themselves, and not have a boy answer in an exaggerated and repulsive snap answer.
If you want to honestly answer me, go to the store and find out.
You somewhat answered my question about the vitriol some guys have in response to this decision by your answer, though, if some people don't get exactly what they want, even if it really doesn't pertain to them, they throw a histrionic fit, and mock other people for respecting the woman's decision whether or not she works for a company that disallows four post conception contraceptives.

a reply to: TheCounselor

Not at all. You took a general comment personally. Now you're trying to justify why you took it personally.

As stated, I meant my response generally or generically. You and I obviously have different opinions about how "average" men feel about women. Both perspectives are based on our experience. I expressed mine, now you have expressed yours. Hopefully, we're done.

Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

originally posted by: nenothtu

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!

Haha. Yeah, the RIGHTIES focus on banning (controlling) the really important stuff like same-sex marriage and vaginas and swearing and fresh air and water and choice and books and beer on Sundays and anyone who disagrees with them.

Thanks for the laugh. But seriously, take a break from the left-right crap. Each extreme can be as bad as the other when it comes to butting in on personal stuff. True story.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Fair enough.

Who's being treated in a prenatal surgery to repair spina bifida, the mother, the child, or both?

a reply to: Gryphon66

We all know why they want to know. So they can suck more money out of us. On anti-depressants because your mom dies and you have fibromyalgia? You pay 500% more for life insurance now!

Bleed us dry every and any which way they can. Yep yep. And in many cases, the government helps them do it by selling us out. The WHOLE government: doesn't matter who's in the house.

Hobby Lobby did this to save money. In fines. That were part of a law that SCOTUS upheld. Ludicrous isn't even the word for it. But I blame the lawyers and politicians more than Hobby Lobby. They're just pawns here.

a reply to: windword

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

Nope. Not true. You're wrong.

Nope. Not true. You're wrong.

All Hobby Lobby employees still have the right to birth control.

Just not paid for by Hobby Lobby. They want to abort their kid? They still can, but not paid for by their employer.

Fixed your error there. No thanks are necessary, lol.

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: Gryphon66

Fair enough.

Who's being treated in a prenatal surgery to repair spina bifida, the mother, the child, or both?

The literature I've read refers to this surgery performed on "the fetus." If the fetus is viable, it's a child.

If it's not, it's a fetus, and while it is in a woman's body, it's a part of her body.

a reply to: adjensen
And, again, why does anyone, government or employer, have a right to define healthcare for me? I'm either covered for the whole enchilada of what I and my medical provider/professional deems necessary for my wellbeing or I'm not covered. All this picking and choosing...sheesh. Gee I wonder who encouraged that?

I can see you salivating...but...but...wait! The surprise answer is exactly the opposite of what you're thinking. Another well-intentioined law to try to cover every conceivable way to ensure that there was no discrimination has turned into the red cape to the bulls who need to turn this into a political and ideological war or worm their way into more profit.

Pitiful.

a reply to: adjensen

All Hobby Lobby employees still have the right to birth control.

So, access to birth control is a right? We can agree?

Just not paid for by Hobby Lobby.

So, did you think that I thought that it was "free" because Hobby Lobby paid for it? Anyway, don't Hobby Lobby employees also pay into their insurance out of their paycheck, co-pays, deductables and such? How in the world can this be construed as "free" or that only Hobby Lobby is doing the "paying"?

They want to abort their kid? They still can, but not paid for by their employer.

The ACA never mandated abortion. And, yeah, abortion is still legal in this country.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Then I suppose we have nothing to discuss, because if you can't even acknowledge the simple fact that the mother doesn't have spina bifida, then you are the one who is blinded by your beliefs, and arguing with you would be pointless.

a reply to: Bone75

Yep. Well established that you and I have far different opinions on this matter.

There is no point in arguing facts versus belief, that I'll grant you.

Interesting discussions going on. This thread is huge! I have not read all of the messages, but having browsed through this thread, and many others like it elsewhere, I have wondered about something that I have yet to see be brought up. It has me rather curious to why no one has actually said it (that I have seen), but by the same token, it seems a very valid, and fascinating topic pertinent to this discussion.

So, I thought I would throw this rock into the blades of the fan, and see where it goes.

We mostly all understand that the HL ruling was over abortifacients, or, to prevent an implanted egg from being aborted. This applies to the 4 forms of abortifacients the SC ruled against, in favor of HL, two of them being IUD's, which actually disallow implantation of the fertilized egg, the others are the Morning After pill, or better known as 'Plan B'.
, which aborts, or also prevents implantation of the fertilized egg.

This brings me to the rock in the fan. Did the SC, unwittingly, in it's ruling, itself actually determine the moment of inception as the beginning of life?

For me, this realization has been rather ground shaking, as all courts have veered from this determination, unwilling to actually making a determination as to the actual beginning of life, whether at the moment of conception, sometime during the pregnancy, or, at the moment of birth.

The mere fact that this ruling can be determined to be read that way should be of concern for many, for so many reasons.

It is still on topic, as it can be seen as a religious belief, as well as a moral belief. Almost everyone BUT the courts have an opinion on when life actually begins.

So, did the SC unwittingly open a whole new can of worms with this decision? While everyone is distracted with all forms of silliness over this ruling, even downright lying and disinformation, have any of you stopped to consider the real ramifications possible, if the ruling can be read now, to say that the SC has determined that life begins at conception?

Get back to me on this.

a reply to: Libertygal

As I understand it, SCOTUS ruled that HL's belief that those methods of birth control violated their religious beliefs were all that matters. SCOTUS ruled on the right to hold a belief. Not on whether or not that belief is true or even valid.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Libertygal

As I understand it, SCOTUS ruled that HL's belief that those methods of birth control violated their religious beliefs were all that matters. SCOTUS ruled on the right to hold a belief. Not on whether or not that belief is true or even valid.

Yep, understood, and thanks so much for the reply!

Where my concerns lay is with how people, attorneys, in particular, take rulings like these, and 'read between the lines". The perfect example is Roe V Wade, in which the SC made no exact specifications, yet, it has been taken and argued as a standard 'belief' the SC must think life begins at birth. This pont has been bantered about since that ruling came down.

Hence, why I brought this into the topic to begin with. Some may even say that if the SC supports HL's beliefs, they must hold the same beliefs, so that is why I was interested in opinions.

Thanks again for the reply!

a reply to: Libertygal

Where my concerns lay is with how people, attorneys, in particular, take rulings like these, and 'read between the lines".

Yep. I'm seeing it already. Some people even claiming that SCOTUS ruled the 4 contraception methods themselves violated the law.

Contraception is still legal and so is abortion.

originally posted by: nenothtu

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.

No it does not. Men can still reproduce with whomever they want whenever they want. If you mean it affects the fetus containing half your DNA, you are more than welcome to your half of the clump of cells after its been terminated. But until men can carry a fetus to full term, no, the law says you have no rights over anyone else's body (and that's the way it should be).

originally posted by: MsSmith

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: MsSmith

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Jason88
a reply to: thesaneone
I think it's solid to remind ourselves about freedom, and that we provide to women in the US - who yet again are being dictated to by insecure men.

I love this argument, the "if you aren't a woman you should have no say" argument. I guess doctors who haven't had AIDS or Cancer shouldn't have a say in their patients treatment. The argument smacks of stupidity. And again, women haven't been told anything by the US. In the US they can still purchase any contraceptives they want. In the US they can still get an abortion. But the fact that an employer can say "I'm not paying for that, it violates my beliefs" is somehow a negative reflection on the US? But it would be a positive reflection of the US if the government said "you have to do what we say, regardless of your beliefs"? You have some weird world views.

You really don't see the difference between a man telling a woman what she can and can't do with her own body and an educated doctor treating a patient for cancer? Seriously??? LMAO!

To start, cancer and AIDS are both diseases. Despite what you may believe, being a woman is not. There's always a possibility anyone could develop a disease, but there's no possibility that a man will ever develop a uterus. Second, while a doctor can suggest treatments, he can't force you to undergo or not undergo any treatment you choose. You have the final say, not your doctor, which is true of almost anything else when it comes to a man's body. You can decide not to undergo chemo and use holistic medicine instead. Right now as we speak, women in this country can't undergo a procedure to terminate an unwanted pregnancy because some man somewhere decided those women don'r have the right to make decisions about their own body.

No matter how hard you try, you cannot become a biological woman if you are born a man. So nothing a woman can or can't do to her body could EVER affect a man, including men who undergo gender reassignment, SO NO, MEN DO NOT GET A SAY IN ANY WOMEN ONLY ISSUES. 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.

I don't see a difference between an educated man telling you what to do for cancer and an educated man telling you what to do for pregnancy. No, I don't see that difference. You want to pretend that being a woman is some unknowable phenomenon to anyone but a woman, when really it's not anymore unknowable than a doctor who has never had a disease. No womanhood is not a disease, I never implied that, if you thought I was then you misunderstood the point.

No man can force a woman to do or not do anything, to suggest otherwise is to be ignorant to the mindset of women. Unless you do what that guy in ohio did to those women he had locked in his basement. Then again, he was charged with five counts of murder for the unborn babies... oh wait... they're not people... so how does that work? Anyway, what the men and women in congress do (which are voted in by women, as well as men) is represent the interests of their constituents. NEWS FLASH: Most women oppose abortion (according to gallup) so by lumping all women into this group that is monolithic and supports abortion, again, shows your ignorance. Also, you must have missed the memo, you aren't allowed to have women's only issues, just like we aren't allowed to have men's only issues, clubs, etc.

And it's not an argument that it affects the unborn baby, it's a fact. It's the whole reason for the procedure. It's not even a procedure, it's murder. If your child (born) dies in their sleep, it's not murder but a tragedy, but if you go in with a saw and hack them all to pieces, it sure is murder. The same goes for your unborn children. Just because you deem them lower than human, doesn't make it so. Just like it didn't make slaves lower than human when people believed they were, and could kill them. Just like it didn't make mormon's lower than human when people believed they were, and could kill them.

There is no argument that because the mother is sustaining them while she's pregnant ... because that would make post-birth abortion OK (babies rely on their mothers sustenance, long after birth). There is no argument that the mother can't afford them, there's adoption. There's no argument that because they are "not viable"... because eventually they'll be able to grow them in a test tube, which will make your view now look as barbaric as the culling of children in Sparta.

If you don't want to get pregnant, there are numerous ways to prevent it, from drugs and devices, to surgeries and abstinence. There is no excuse for murder.

The difference between an educated man telling me what to do for cancer and an educated man telling me what to do for pregnancy is I STILL HAVE THE ULTIMATE CHOICE OVER ANY TREATMENT FOR THE CANCER IN MY OWN BODY. No doctor can force me to do any treatment or stop me from doing any treatment I choose. And no random man off the street has any influence whatsoever over any decisions I make.

And LOL @ every man everywhere with an opinion on what women should do with their own bodies being educated because no. If this was an issue of only doctors suggestion to women what they should do, it wouldn't be a problem. But it's not. Men with no medical experience whatsoever are using personal and religious beliefs to MAKE LAWS telling women what they can do with their own bodies, not suggesting ideas for cancer treatments. Until I approach you or anyone else asking for your opinion, you are nothing comparable to a doctor helping me choose a treatment for cancer. And since you can't force me not to kill the cancer cells if I decide I want to, it's not even relatable. I can walk away from a doctor who thinks it's immoral to treat cancer cells in my uterus. I can't walk away from an idiot man who passed a law that says it's illegal to treat fetal cells in my uterus.

There are numerous ways to prevent pregnancy. Termination is one of them. Thankfully, morons like you have no control over what I do with my body where I live!

Maybe we should treat the cells that make up the entirety of you? They're just cells you know. Do you see how flat your argument falls? Just a bunch of ranting and comparing human life to cells, despite the fact that we are all just cells.

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: solomons path
Sweet . . . I love this decision.

As an atheist business owner, I will no longer be paying "holiday pay", closing up, or honoring "requested days off" for "Christmas".

Mandates be damned!!

Whoo-hoo!!

Many businesses are open on christmas, it's not mandated you close. Holiday pay is not mandated either (at least federally). Nor do you have to honor requests for any day off, just be prepared to lose employees by the drove.

I never claimed I was mandated to provide those things. Just that I will no longer be paying for those things that go against my personal beliefs. What's good for the gander and all . . .

My line about mandates was specifically about the court decision.

And I'm not worried about "losing employees by the droves" . . . I'm sure the can move to the nearest town that houses a HL and find work there. Or anywhere really, I hear work/jobs in the U.S. is/are at a surplus . . . I'm sure they won't have trouble finding one. I reside in a right to work state, so I don't have to wait for them to leave. All they have to do is "call-in sick" on Dec. 25th and I'll be happy to show them to the nearest DES office and turn them into the "gold diggers" they despise. Plus, I'm told there are "thousands of immigrants" coming to this country everyday, I'm sure they will be happy for the work.

I'm mean if the SCOTUS can rule it's okay for one corporate leader to be an @$$#*% based on their religious beliefs . . . why can't we all?

You sure can. And in some states, the economy isn't doing so bad. The unemployment rate in my state is 3.8%, so all of your employees that leave in droves can come here and find a job.