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: 60
49
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

Probably don't need these any more then, yes?

obstetrician




posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

jesus christ....NOBODY is blocking access...you can still go out and buy the stuff...

it's like you complaining that you didn't get any pie, and i give you mine, and you ignore it, and continue to complain that you didn't get any pie...what the hell is wrong with you?
edit on 7-2-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: thesaneone

What personal responsibility? Is there such a thing anymore?

We have a group who seems to expect to get things for free and when they don't they throw a hissy fit. Never mind that they have the ability to get these things for themselves if they apply themselves. No...they would rather pay $25 a month for HUD all utilities paid housing, collect SSI and food stamps. Oh, scuse me, it's SNAP now, right? Much less demeaning calling it that.

Obamaphone! Obamaphone! Obamaphone! Obamaphone!




Yea what was I thinking, in the age of entitlements most people have forgotten what it means to have personal responsibilities. It does amaze me what can change in 6 years.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

who said anything about abstinence? he said personal responsibility..

meaning, don't have sex, use protection, or if you choose neither of those, cowboy up, and handle your business..



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Tatanka

gods...i think i'm in love, lol



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: drivers1492

they're still paying less than they would if they were buying the policy themselves, through the exchange....so i'd say "stop crying, you're already getting a deal"



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Daedalus

That kind of contraceptive is for the stupid. Too stupid to plan ahead. Too stupid to understand the consequences of unprotected sex.



Or maybe its for the family who has kids and really, in order to be responsible, can't afford any more and, oops! the condom breaks! This does happen, you know. People may know, within a marriage, their limits and abilities to provide for children materially and emotionally. They make responsible decisions. But even the best laid plans can go wrong. Your argument that "this type of birth control is for the stupid" assumes it is for people who don't use other forms of birth control and that other forms of birth control are 100% effective. It is simply insulting.

Good Gracious. Birth Control is the height of RESPONSIBILITY, and yes, sometimes people are stupid (which makes it maybe a good idea that they don't have kids and use a morning after pill?!?), and sometimes responsible people's birth control fails or they make a mistake with it (the pill can be problematic if someone isn't consistent and forgets).

- AB



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

wow...privacy is not an inalienable right?

it's amazing how people can completely gloss over, and skip entire parts of the bill of rights, when they don't fit with their agenda or argument...

again, cite where it says you cannot have these things, and you no longer have the right to make the choice in question?...show me the quote...



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

completely agreed.

my entire point was that mother jones (as usual) twisted reality, to make it appear as if HL was DIRECTLY investing in those companies, while poo-pooing their products on religious grounds....which is absolutely retarded, when you think about it...



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

not according to our Christian-based supreme court


... of which 2 were appointed by our Muslim president.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Just thinking out loud here.
but is it really a win, when a branch of our Government had to make the decision?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Nearly half of likely voters agree with the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision that employers can refuse to provide health coverage for contraceptives if doing so violates their religious beliefs, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll.

The poll found that 49 percent of respondents believe business owners should be allowed to refrain from offering such coverage (39 percent were opposed). On a closely related question, 47 percent believe that companies should not be “required by law” to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved birth control for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient. Just over four in 10 believe the law should require employers to include all government-approved contraceptives for women without charges.

A recent Reuters Ispos survey, however, found its results to be strikingly different when a similar question was asked.

When queried whether employers should have the right to choose what forms of contraceptives their health plans provide based on their religious beliefs, 53 percent disagreed while only 37 percent agreed.

What’s more, the Reuters poll found a majority of respondents believe that for-profit businesses should not be allowed to apply for federal law exemptions based on the owner’s religious beliefs.

[Source]


The case SCOTUS should hear is why employers and insurance companies and governments, the former for profit and the latter in a botched attempt at fairness, have any business getting into the decisions between a physician and a person period. You're either covered or you're not. What's with the cherry picking and the invasion of privacy and personal space? Not like people become your property just because you give them a benefit for working for you or being insured by you. The laws are ALL on the side of big business. And that's got to stop, but it won't with this Supreme Court.
edit on 7/2/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

read my earlier posts....i've acknowledged before that pregnancy can threaten the life of the mother....and no, i've never been pregnant, but what does that have to do with science?

pregnancy is not a medical condition...it's not a disease, or a tumor...it's a developmental stage of life...it is a creation of a new life, which, yes, can have some rather serious effects on the mother....it can CAUSE medical conditions, but it is not, itself, a medical condition....



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: spacedoubt

lol, way to oversimplify....

"why would i need a doctor for something that isn't a medical condition?" herpity-f**king-derp..

getting a checkup....you see a doc..you don't have a condition..

same thing, basically...it's a doc, that you see, to help keep tabs on things, and make sure that you DON'T develop ACTUAL medical conditions, in the process of creating another human being...oh, and they also make sure that this other human you're creating is developing as it should, and that IT'S not developing any medical conditions along the way...



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus




wow...privacy is not an inalienable right?

it's amazing how people can completely gloss over, and skip entire parts of the bill of rights, when they don't fit with their agenda or argument...


How is privacy an inalienable right? Is a muti-family house, where everyone shares a bathroom a violation of a civil right? NO? I thought not.

How does privacy fit into the phrase "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

Is my "inalienable right to privacy" going to protect me from rape?

I thought not!




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



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

I do like things to be simple!
Humans, with our big heads, and egos.
As well as our desire to have all of our offspring survive, have a need to treat the females of our species with TLC.
I would class pregnancy as a medical condition.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus

pregnancy is not a medical condition...


Sorry but not even I am buying that one.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677




Seriously? That quote is your argument? There isn't even a source listed. As far as I am concerned that could be a quote from your neighbor regarding what the govt "could" do.


Are you claiming that I fabricated that quote and claimed that it was from the SCOTUS syllabus? Are you calling me liar, or worse? Look, I downloaded the SCOTUS document and have it on desk top. I'm not going to go search so I can repost the link. I linked it once, and it's been linked by others as well. I don't re-link every time I have to repeat myself. If you try hard enough, you can find it.


There is no problem with access. If you are working, you can pay. If you are not working, then obviously you are not working for Hobby Lobby, or any other company. If that is the case, then go to planned abortion, excuse me, planned parenthood. There is no problem with ACCESS to contraceptives as a result of this ruling.



There IS a problem with access right now. HHS has to make an inroad to fix the problem that SCOTUS dropped in their lap on Monday. After all, this is the government we're talking about!

I can do without your personal insults, thank you. They don't bolster you argument either.


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



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: drivers1492

they're still paying less than they would if they were buying the policy themselves, through the exchange....so i'd say "stop crying, you're already getting a deal"


There still being charged for something they can't access due to someone the employer faith. So I think that is where alot of folks are troubled. Being made to pay for a service you cannot use to its capacity. Perhaps your different from me but I'm not paying for insurance that is any way limited by someone else's opinion of right and wrong. If it has to be limited then pro-rate it to cover me to make the purchase elsewhere. The reason I say that is because the healthcare plan they are paying on includes these things per aca mandate.

Everyone is yelling....you can still get it, it's still available....yes it is, and it's already been paid for yet not accessible. They have to pay for the product (since it's included per aca mandate) and then go elsewhere to get it and possibly pay again. What kind of idiot crap is that. It doesn't matter if it's 50$ or 1$, the point is it's been paid for.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

i'd say the third, fourth, fifth, and ninth, pretty well cover that you have a right to privacy....

wtf does a bathroom have to do with privacy? you go in, you lock the door, and nobody sees ur hoo-hah...jesus man, do you need me to walk you through everything?

and ffs...rape? really? you're gonna trot out rape? what the hell is wrong with you?

that's like trotting out hitler, or satan.....it's absurd..
edit on 7-2-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join