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

a reply to: Daedalus

Yeah, semantics I think.
I don't view the word "condition" as a negative or a positive.
But props to you for thinking about it.


Another point, if I may.
I think it applies due to this subject being about the human rights of a developing child.
Two mothers, Both pregnant. Two babies developing. the argument being that both babies have the right to life.
However.
One mother has Full blown medical coverage, the other, not so great. But good enough as to not qualify for other healthcare services. Do these developing children have the same rights to EXCELLENT medical care?
Or are the "rights" only applying to the mother?
Does one baby bet better prenatal care, just because?
Is this a right, or a benefit?

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: AboveBoard

i can meet you half way on that, and acknowledge that i completely understand your understanding of it...while i may not entirely agree, you make good points, and i MOSTLY agree...

good, yes?

(Nods graciously.) Thank you. I appreciate your willingness to understand my understanding.

I also realize you are trying to make the point that an embryo/fetus is not a disease, which I fully agree with.
The process of growing another human being inside your own body is miraculous - and beautiful - and also very difficult and dangerous. It requires medical care for best outcomes.

peace,
AB

originally posted by: MsSmith

No it does not. Men can still reproduce with whomever they want whenever they want.

What kind of barbaric world do you live in? They call that sort of thing "rape" where I come from, and it's pretty severely sanctioned. No, men CANNOT just mate with whatever strikes their fancy.

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).

Oh, you can trust me on this, or disregard it as you wish, but you can be damned sure I'd have had my "pound of flesh" if anyone, anywhere had killed off one of my kids.

Now, you can be just as callous and heartless as you like, but the facts are that there are just some men in this world that don't take kindly to being trifled with in reproductive matters. Unless you engage entirely in virgin pregnancies, then you didn't do it on your own, and should not have sole say in what was a joint production.

Some of the best advice I've ever gotten on matters of sex was when I was a much younger man, and it was: "don't go 'round pollinating just any old girl - never have sex with a woman you wouldn't be willing to marry if it came down to it." If women could figure that out too, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Party as heartily as you like, but know that the piper always requires a payment. What we are debating here is just WHO should have to make that payment - the responsible parties, or just whomever they can coerce into it.

a reply to: olaru12

lol, this post is moronic.

first you imply that i'm no good with words, and that i use "turd" at some point during the interview process, and that's why i haven't been able to get a job..you make this idiotic, and completely baseless assertion without having even the FAINTEST idea of my circumstances....should i sue you for libel NOW, or wait, and collect some more gems?

then you imply that i blame reid and obama for my lack of a job.....where exactly did i say that?

you need to learn how to read..and apparently, comprehend..

a reply to: jrod

yes, it's cheap....so why does everyone think they shouldn't hafta pay for it?

mcnuggets are cheap..do i expect someone else is going to pay for them for me?

a reply to: opethPA

Yes, that is accurate. Hobby Lobby provides coverage for 16 of the 20 birth control methods outlined in the ACA. The company owners believe that the other four are forms of abortion and will not pay for them, though their employees can still get them, they just have to pay for them themselves.

a reply to: Daedalus

it's funny, because i could swear that this stuff is still available for purchase....

Wait? So, if your boss is a Christian, you have to pay for it twice?

a reply to: spacedoubt

and props to you for acknowledging the amount of thought that went into it....instead of just going "you're wrong, and a poopie-head, and a racist", like some other folks would have....

as to your other point....i'm really not sure....i mean, as long as they're both getting baseline care to ensure that nothing bad happens to the mother or child, that's adequate.....anything more is just gravy....

i'd say that whatever level of service that keeps you from dying, is "excellent"

a reply to: Daedalus

That is a ridiculous comparison. A LaLa land argument. Please offer real world solutions to the problem.

Currently we are paying for millions of infants and children on welfare because contraception in the US is not widely available.

Unwanted pregnancies are a real world problem. Contraception is cheap, far cheaper than millions of infants who are now dependent on welfare.

a reply to: AboveBoard

also, completely agreed......i still just don't think of the pregnancy itself as a "condition"....it has such a clinical, and negative connotation to it..... like i said before, gout is a condition, cancer is a condition, the hiv is a condition....

-shrug- could be a matter of semantics, as spacedoubt suggested....but it just doesn't feel right referring to it as a condition....

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: opethPA

Yes, that is accurate. Hobby Lobby provides coverage for 16 of the 20 birth control methods outlined in the ACA. The company owners believe that the other four are forms of abortion and will not pay for them, though their employees can still get them, they just have to pay for them themselves.

The employees have multiple different types of birth control but they want a paid free pass if they get pregnant.
So in other words, "I made a mistake, someone else pay to fix it"

I honestly thought with all the posts on the Internet of "my rights were violated" it was more going to be something like the business said "if you are on birth control you cant work here"

a reply to: windword

so that's your real problem...it's not about rights, or any of the other stuff you went, on, and on, and on, and on, and on about earlier.......it's about the PERCEPTION that you're "paying for it twice"...

now that we have THAT out of the way, i'll say the same thing i said earlier......your coverage through your employer is still going to be MUCH cheaper, than if you had to buy the policy for yourself, through the exchange, so i would say "stop whining, you're already getting a hell of a deal"

a reply to: jrod

Currently we are paying for millions of infants and children on welfare because contraception in the US is not widely available.

What?

They're not widely available? You can buy condoms in any Target, Walmart or drug store in the country. They pass 'em out in schools, for pete's sakes.

Unwanted pregnancies happen because people are stupid, careless or lazy. Not because condoms are so hard to find. And free birth control doesn't change stupid, careless or lazy.

a reply to: thesaneone

Yep...but just watch over the next 20 or so. I am 60...imagine the changes since I started working. It's really sad the attitudes I see compared to, oh 40 years ago. This era is worse than the Carter era, far worse. Yet you wouldn't know it listening to the talking heads in the media.

Used to be it was shameful to depend on the "state" for support, even if you deserved the help. Now, people demand it...no shame. It's all about what I can get for myself for free...no consideration for those who are working and shelling out massive amounts of their income to support others. (let me edit to say, this is much too inclusive...not everyone is like this. Just too many are like this)

Yeah, people will say that the income tax was higher back then...but heck, we didn't have the multitude of stealth taxes that we have now. The govt learned not to take it all out at once. Stealth it out so we "wont notice". The govt is the most wasteful, corrupt, bloated, bureaucratic effed up entity we could possibly imagine. And then imagine worse...cause that is what we have. And yeah...turn em loose on our healthcare system. It will get better!! They promise! (just like education has improved over the last 10 years).

What really gets me is how people do not realize that increased corporate taxes are paid for by the consumers. How when you demand that the govt handle healthcare where is that money coming from? How when people demand that the company pay for insurance, who is really paying for that? How higher corporate taxes just makes it harder for american companies to compete overseas. And then the morons wonder why jobs are going overseas. Oh..yeah, we surely need a $15 minimum wage. Yep. Drive the rest of the jobs overseas ... might as well!

Jeez people are stupid.

originally posted by: jrod
That is a ridiculous comparison. A LaLa land argument. Please offer real world solutions to the problem.

no, it's not....McNuggets are cheap, and they're available to anyone...go to a McDonalds, and you buy them, and they're good...same thing for contraceptives.....they're cheap, available to anyone, and all you need to do is go and buy some.....i mean, without being graphic, or crude...i'm pretty sure a McNugget could be used as a contraceptive, in a pinch....

Currently we are paying for millions of infants and children on welfare because contraception in the US is not widely available.

yes, it is widely available...ANYONE can go buy them....they're not illegal, or government-issue-only

Unwanted pregnancies are a real world problem. Contraception is cheap, far cheaper than millions of infants who are now dependent on welfare.

saying the same stupid thing over and over again doesn't make it any more true....regardless of what they teach in propaganda school...

originally posted by: jrod
because contraception in the US is not widely available.

Huh?
As a guy I literally can go into any convenience store, super market, gas station, take your pick of just about any other store and by a condom .

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Daedalus

That is a ridiculous comparison. A LaLa land argument. Please offer real world solutions to the problem.

Currently we are paying for millions of infants and children on welfare because contraception in the US is not widely available.

Unwanted pregnancies are a real world problem. Contraception is cheap, far cheaper than millions of infants who are now dependent on welfare.

The people who are on welfare having multitudes of babies do not want contraception. The more kids the more support they get. Go visit a HUD housing community and hang out a while. You will find out how stupid the above quote is. For those who do not work and intentionally depend on the "state" for support do not care about contraception, do not use contraceptives and could care less what you think as long as the free ride continues.

Unless you are talking about forced sterilization?

a reply to: opethPA

I honestly thought with all the posts on the Internet of "my rights were violated" it was more going to be something like the business said "if you are on birth control you cant work here"

That's what the looney left and fear mongers like the president of Planned Parenthood want you to believe, of course.

Typical propaganda:

"The Supreme Court says bosses can now deny employees access to birth control coverage."

That statement is 100% BS, and they know it. The lemmings that follow them are apparently too dumb to, though.

a reply to: Daedalus

Your little high school style of trying to make a point might making for a good sound byte and can sway and ignorant audience but it fails to address the issue.

Unwanted pregnancies are a problem, especially with the youth

Trying to suggest that everyone needs to be responsible and stop making babies they can not afford nor take care is not a realistic approach.

Birth control is much cheaper than welfare!

Your taxes are already paying for the care of infants. The US has many socialistic policies, this will not change.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Daedalus


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....

Then why do most women have their babies delivered in a hospital by DOCTORS? That says medical condition to me!

Even midwifes are trained by medical personnel. Epic fail amigo!!!

Try not to let your ideology get in the way of your common sense!!!

Here is a definition: (perhaps it should be the definition of ignorant, but I will skip that for now)

medical condition A disease, illness or injury; any physiologic, mental or psychological condition or disorder (e.g., orthopaedic; visual, speech or hearing impairments; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; muscular dystrophy; multiple sclerosis; cancer; medical condition A disease, illness or injury; any physiologic, mental or psychological condition or disorder (e.g., orthopaedic; visual, speech or hearing impairments; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; muscular dystrophy; multiple sclerosis; cancer; coronary artery disease; diabetes; mental retardation; emotional or mental illness; specific learning disabilities; HIV disease; TB; drug addiction; alcoholism). A biological or psychological state which is within the range of normal human variation is not a medical condition.



I don't see pregnancy listed. Nor do I see stupid, moron nor ignorant fool listed as medical conditions.