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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
No, it did not.
Read Griswold. The issue was privacy, because there is no Constitutional right to birth control.
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.
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.
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.
Why are you being so obtuse about this?
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 do you insist on being intellectually dishonest and misrepresenting my words and argument?
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.