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: 57
49
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: bbracken677




Call a doctor. Thats my source for this stupidity. CALL A DOCTOR AND ASK. CALL WALGREENS AND ASK. CALL CVS AND FREAKING ASK.


DUDE! Calm down! You'd think you're the one being denied an IUD! And, by the way, women can't get IUDs at Walgreens!


They could sell them over the counter.

Ancient Egyptian women used a form of them....
Stones.
They also used dried crocodile dung.
And it worked.

Before you cry.... some women today put far worse up there.



SM2

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: windword


Okay, you're another one that can't comprehend or won't read. I never said anyone has the "right" to free contraception, however, the Supreme Court HAS ruled that birth control and abortion are "rights". Low cost and free birth control are privileges.


There is nothing in this Supreme Court decision that blocks access to birth control,


That's true. SCOTUS ruled that Hobby Lobby, et al, are exempt from the contraception mandate. However, currently there is no path for these women to access the birth control options, which is their within their rights. They can't purchase another policy under the ACA/HHS rules, right now. So, they're out of luck and out of pocket for those benefits, even though they have insurance.


which you claim is a right (which it is not -- the Supreme Court decisions on both birth control, Griswold v. Connecticut, and abortion, Roe v. Wade, were about the right to privacy, not the right to birth control or abortion



The court decided that single people have the right to contraceptives. What’s that got to do with marriage? Everything, because what the Supreme Court essentially said is single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse.
Family Research Council of America representative , Pat Fagan



whereas the "right of privacy" in Griswold was said to only apply to marital relationships. The argument in Eisenstadt was that it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to deny unmarried couples the right to use contraception when married couples did have that right (under Griswold).

Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan wrote that Massachusetts could not enforce the law against married couples because of Griswold v. Connecticut, so the law worked "irrational discrimination" if not extended to unmarried couples as well.
en.wikipedia.org...


There you have it. The Supreme Court DID rule that using contraception IS A RIGHT. Married and unmarried have the "right to contraception.


-- if every abortion doctor in the US were to suddenly decide to stop giving abortions, would the Federal government be compelled to start providing them? Of course not, because no one has a right to have an abortion,


Wrong.


No decision of the Supreme Court in the twentieth century has been as controversial as the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision holding that women have a right to choose to have an abortion during the first two trimesters of a pregnancy.
law2.umkc.edu...



Monday's decision regards whether it needs to be covered under a Federally mandated insurance policy, which is a privilege, not a right.


Birth control is a constitutionally protected right. Free and affordable birth control is a privilege.


So, again, your claim that, as a result of this SCOTUS ruling, a woman "needs to tiptoe around religious fanatics to exercise her rights" is invalid.


SCOTUS left the logistics up to HHS. Until the current administration and Congress work out a plan, right now she does!



NO, the SCOTUS ruling did not make them exempt from the mandate, just granted them a very very narrow exemption from 4 types out of the 20.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: butcherguy




Not 'unable to get'...

Unwilling to pay for.


These women are already paying their insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays. The law says that they are entitled to those contraceptive methods in the insurance coverage they already paying for. It's their employer that's refusing to pay and withholding access.


Still a far cry from 'unable to get'.
They would have a more difficult time buying cigarettes in some states.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Tatanka




Four, to be exact. One of them being RU486, which is an abortifacient.


Hobby Lobby never was required to cover RU486, which is an abortifacient. Abortifacients, which end an established pregnancy, were never part of the ACA/HHS mandate.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bbracken677

The US will fail if we do not adopt a more socialistic healthcare system. We are failing.

Every other civilized country in the world gives women access to free birth control. The US forces women to jump through hoops and pay an inflated price if they do not have healthcare.

A lifetime supply of birth control is far cheaper than paying for an infant on welfare.


not according to our Christian-based supreme court



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: windword

Finally...you get it!! She still has access.

I disagree about the doc visit being covered, however. Just the prescription.

Regarding the $10...you did notice the + sign I added indicating 10 and up?

So, this hypothetical woman just HAS to have the most expensive contraception possible and expects me to pay for it? ummm... no!



hobby lobbys insurance company is paying for Viagra and vasectomies, but, that's ok, right?


Cool sounds like to me then they should just stick to sleeping w each other then they wouldn't have to worry about the emergency contraceptives



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: SM2




NO, the SCOTUS ruling did not make them exempt from the mandate, just granted them a very very narrow exemption from 4 types out of the 20.


Nope.

SCOTUS said that it didn't matter if they objected to 4 or 20. The ruling wouldn't change. Hobby Lobby, et al, are exempt from the Contraception Mandate. PERIOD.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tatanka

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: bbracken677




Call a doctor. Thats my source for this stupidity. CALL A DOCTOR AND ASK. CALL WALGREENS AND ASK. CALL CVS AND FREAKING ASK.


DUDE! Calm down! You'd think you're the one being denied an IUD! And, by the way, women can't get IUDs at Walgreens!



LOL unfortunately someone has to put that in. A DIY IUD sounds frightening to me!

Yeah that crocodile dung one sounds a bit unnerving, but it must have been effective and apparently didn't kill a lot of the ancient Egyptian women, as it was found in the 'PDR' of the time.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen




No, it did not.

Read Griswold. The issue was privacy, because there is no Constitutional right to birth control.


I don't know why you keep saying that! You're like a broken (wrong) record! Read!


whereas the "right of privacy" in Griswold was said to only apply to marital relationships. The argument in Eisenstadt was that it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to deny unmarried couples the right to use contraception when married couples did have that right (under Griswold).

Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan wrote that Massachusetts could not enforce the law against married couples because of Griswold v. Connecticut, so the law worked "irrational discrimination" if not extended to unmarried couples as well.




Then read Roe. The issue was privacy, because there is no Constitutional right to abortion.



Abortion.—In Roe v. Wade,557 the Court established a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that includes the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child.

Finally, the Court summarily announced that the "Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action" includes "a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy"560 and that "this right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.


The right to abort is extended and encompassed within the 14th Amendment.



And you certainly do not have a right to free birth control, which is, for at least the third time, what this decision was in regards to.


Why do you insist on being intellectually dishonest and misrepresenting my words and argument?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

It says "unable to obtain coverage", not "unable to obtain contraceptives". You're being purposely dense here and I can't help but wonder why.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

But they aren't denied that right. They can get contraceptives. And they are covered by hobby lobby.

Just because they can't get the KIND they want doesn't mean they are denied it.....

Why are you being so obtuse about this?

I feel this is more of an agenda thing then you being intellectually honest about this



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Tatanka




Four, to be exact. One of them being RU486, which is an abortifacient.


Hobby Lobby never was required to cover RU486, which is an abortifacient. Abortifacients, which end an established pregnancy, were never part of the ACA/HHS mandate.


HEY!...keep corrective truth out of this, republicans don't care, so it's of no use.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

Coverage which within is their legal rights. Not being able to obtain contraception coverage is a violation of these women's rights under the ACA/HSS contraception mandate.

You're promoting a two tiered system of federal rights and benefits for women. One set of rights and benefits for disenfranchised women who are employed by the religious fundies, and another better set for those who aren't.

You seem to support Hobby Lobby's rights when they are being violated, but not when their female employees rights are being violated.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask




Why are you being so obtuse about this?



Back at ya!



But they aren't denied that right. They can get contraceptives. And they are covered by hobby lobby.


They can get it if they pay out of pocket for a DR's Visit and pay for the prescription. Both of which are required to be covered in the price of the premium that they are already paying, per the ACA/HSS.



Just because they can't get the KIND they want doesn't mean they are denied it.....


What????



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


Why do you insist on being intellectually dishonest and misrepresenting my words and argument?

I am not being "intellectually dishonest", I am stating the facts and correcting your misstatements about Constitutional law. I've studied it, you clearly have not.

There is no Constitutional right to birth control -- if there was, the Federal government would be required to give it to you, for free, whenever you asked for it, because you would have a right to it and the government could not violate the Constitution by not giving it to you.

Access to birth control is mandated because of the right of privacy, not because there is a Constitutional right to birth control. And cheap or free birth control is an entitlement, or privilege, not a right.

As neither this decision nor the actions of Hobby Lobby prevent anyone from access to birth control, providing that they pay for it themselves, there is nothing notable about this decision, apart from fear mongers like the president of Planned Parenthood, who has been ranting that this is some apocalyptic attack on women.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Tatanka




Four, to be exact. One of them being RU486, which is an abortifacient.


Hobby Lobby never was required to cover RU486, which is an abortifacient. Abortifacients, which end an established pregnancy, were never part of the ACA/HHS mandate.


HEY!...keep corrective truth out of this, republicans don't care, so it's of no use.


I don't mind being corrected when I'm wrong. I'm not a republican either



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bbracken677

The US will fail if we do not adopt a more socialistic healthcare system. We are failing.

Every other civilized country in the world gives women access to free birth control. The US forces women to jump through hoops and pay an inflated price if they do not have healthcare.

A lifetime supply of birth control is far cheaper than paying for an infant on welfare.




Lol, the U.S is going to fail if women don't get birth control lol.

Personal responsibility is even cheaper then both those options.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: windword


Why do you insist on being intellectually dishonest and misrepresenting my words and argument?

I am not being "intellectually dishonest", I am stating the facts and correcting your misstatements about Constitutional law.


First of all, the quote cited above was in regard to you insisting that I keep saying that "FREE" contraception is a right. You're being dishonest and putting words in my mouth. I never said that!



I've studied it, you clearly have not.


That's not true!


There is no Constitutional right to birth control -- if there was, the Federal government would be required to give it to you, for free,
whenever you asked for it, because you would have a right to it and the government could not violate the Constitution by not giving it to you.


NONSENSE! Really! Please tell me where I can get free guns!

You can say it all you want, but the Supreme Court disagrees with you, as I have cited 3x times now. Apparently you have a reading comprehension issue. Clearly the words "right to birth control" have been cited and backed by the Supreme Court and by invoking the 14th Amendment, which extends and encompasses the rights of privacy and the rights to contraception and abortion.


Access to birth control is mandated because of the right of privacy, not because there is a Constitutional right to birth control. And cheap or free birth control is an entitlement, or privilege, not a right.


Wrong.



As neither this decision nor the actions of Hobby Lobby prevent anyone from access to birth control, providing that they pay for it themselves, there is nothing notable about this decision,


Why should they have to pay for it out of pocket birth control, when they're already paying their insurance premiums, co-pays and deductables, under the ACA ,which guarantees them all FDA approved contraceptive methods, at no extra cost? That's violation of their rights under the ACA/HSS!



edit on 2-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

Do you really believe abstinence works?

Do you expect any reasonable person believes in it? The statistics about high school programs abstinence says it all.

Free birth control for all women is in this nation is cheaper than tax payer welfare for millions of infants.

For the record, I believe birth control needs to be available in schools without parental consent.


SM2

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SM2




NO, the SCOTUS ruling did not make them exempt from the mandate, just granted them a very very narrow exemption from 4 types out of the 20.


Nope.

SCOTUS said that it didn't matter if they objected to 4 or 20. The ruling wouldn't change. Hobby Lobby, et al, are exempt from the Contraception Mandate. PERIOD.



That sir is a blatant, out right , pure lie.
Show us all, in the actual ruling, not some talking point from MSNBC, where it states this.
You can not, because the exemption was very narrow and only pertained to the 4 specific drugs they objected to.




top topics



 
49
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join