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.

 

Are Laws that Favor One Religion over Another a Violation of the First Amendment?

page: 11
32
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
That's not really true, IUD's can cost as much a month's salary for some women. But, that's not the point. Hobby Lobby et al are exempt from the entire contraception mandate. Some religious employers can pick and choose and others can choose no contraception at all. This ruling affects tens of thousands of women, not just Hobby Lobby employees.


IUDs are the most expensive form of up front birth control... 200 to 1000 depending on what is needed, after the initial cost it gets very cheap... About 10% of those who use contraception use IUDs... Poor women can get IUDs in many places for free, as with other forms of birth control. If a woman (and her partner) can not afford this than there are many other types.

I guess my point is you seem to base your who argument on IUDs, and though I personally do not see this as an issue there is a dark path to this when the Government gets to the point that everyone must accept everything no matter what. That is where I see this leading if everyone has the right of choice removed by the Government.



It also affects tax payers, as the burden for paying for what Hobby Lobby, et al, will not pay for falls on the tax payers. Because, while Hobby Lobby, et al, can exercise religious beliefs the government may not. These women are still entitled to "Equal Protection" under the law.


I hate to say it, it all falls on the tax payer under Obamacare... You also assume that "Equal Protection" under the law means you get what ever you want even if you can not afford it... I use Celebrex for joint pain. I find that it works extremely well for me, and though my insurance is the best I pay a hefty price for it out of pocket because it is very expensive, and insurance companies want to use other drugs instead. My cost is much more than any contraception plan per year. I use it because I can afford it, if I couldn't then I would use something else that is cheaper...Is this also ""Equal Protection" under the law" for me because it is what I personally choose?




posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




IUDs are the most expensive form of up front birth control... 200 to 1000 depending on what is needed, after the initial cost it gets very cheap... About 10% of those who use contraception use IUDs... Poor women can get IUDs in many places for free, as with other forms of birth control. If a woman (and her partner) can not afford this than there are many other types.

I guess my point is you seem to base your who argument on IUDs, and though I personally do not see this as an issue there is a dark path to this when the Government gets to the point that everyone must accept everything no matter what. That is where I see this leading if everyone has the right of choice removed by the Government.


Hobby Lobby objected to four methods of contraception; Two types of IUD's, Plan B and Depo Provera, a contraceptive injection.

Their objection to having these methods available to their employees wasn't based on cost concerns, but on their beliefs.

From the SCOTUS Syllabus:

The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable.



The case was based on the beliefs that providing these contraception methods to their employees allows their employees to make choices that Hobby Lobby owners think they should not make. SCOTUS ruled that Hobby Lobby, et al, have the right to exercise those religious practices.



I hate to say it, it all falls on the tax payer under Obamacare... You also assume that "Equal Protection" under the law means you get what ever you want even if you can not afford it...


"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

This ruling opened the margin of for profit corportaions able to claim religious exemption of the entire contraception mandate of the ACA, not just four methods. This is where Equal Protection comes in. The law of the land, the ACA stipulates that any women, who has an health insurance policy, is entitled to access to ALL contraception methods, at no extra cost, regardless of their employers beliefs. It's not about getting free stuff.


I use Celebrex for joint pain. I find that it works extremely well for me, and though my insurance is the best I pay a hefty price for it out of pocket because it is very expensive, and insurance companies want to use other drugs instead. My cost is much more than any contraception plan per year. I use it because I can afford it, if I couldn't then I would use something else that is cheaper...Is this also ""Equal Protection" under the law" for me because it is what I personally choose?


This isn't a fair parallel. It would only apply if your insurance company was required to, and already covering Celebrex, but your employer, based on their religious beliefs, forbid your doctor from prescribing it to you.

I understand that you don't like the ACA and maybe you hope for its destruction, but that's not what this SCOTUS ruling does. This ruling upholds the contraception mandate, as a compelling government interest, and women's rights to access all FDA approved contraception methods. It points to the already in place tax payer funded health care clinics of Planned Parenthood, under Title X to bear the burdens that religious employers refuse.

From the SCOTUS Syllabus:

As the Court makes clear, this is not a case where it can be established that it is difficult to accommodate the government’s interest, and in fact the mechanism for doing so is already in place.


So, again. This isn't about free stuff or people getting stuff they can't afford. It's about women, who are working and paying their insurance premiums, having their rights burdened on account of their employers religious belief.


edit on 26-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
Their objection to having these methods available to their employees wasn't based on cost concerns, but on their beliefs.


You missed my point, I wasn't saying that the cost was the issue for the company, I was saying that the cost is really not an issue since their workers can get it using another means.


The case was based on the beliefs that providing these contraception methods to their employees allows their employees to make choices that Hobby Lobby owners think they should not make. SCOTUS ruled that Hobby Lobby, et al, have the right to exercise those religious practices.


Those contraception methods are still available for them...geez you act like HL is forbidding them from using them, and I guess your point is if insurance doesn't cover it then these women have no other avenue to get it, and that is not the case.



This ruling opened the margin of for profit corportaions able to claim religious exemption of the entire contraception mandate of the ACA, not just four methods. This is where Equal Protection comes in. The law of the land, the ACA stipulates that any women, who has an health insurance policy, is entitled to access to ALL contraception methods, at no extra cost, regardless of their employers beliefs. It's not about getting free stuff.


ACA is what this is all about, all 2600 pages of it that no one read, and the democrats had a small window to get it into law before a huge chunk of them left office for newly elected republicans.... Isn't it interesting that everyone treats this now as not a law? Obama waves parts, changes parts, and you just can't do that. ACA has some rally scary implantations in it, and is very flawed in many ways, so I'm going to open a bag of pop corn and sit back and watch it all unfold.



So, again. This isn't about free stuff or people getting stuff they can't afford. It's about women, who are working and paying their insurance premiums, having their rights burdened on account of their employers religious belief.


Religion is a tricky area... They do have other paths provided, so is there really a burden here? You seem to say that the ACA is the law of the land, why do you not accept the SCOTUS ruling also? They are the very top of the legal pyramid with an army of lawyers working for them, but you say they are wrong.

I guess in the end, once religion is done away with then the progressives can be happy.



edit on 26-7-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

With all due respect, I think you and I have two different views on exactly WHAT the SCOTUS ruling says.

Would you mind explaining to me how you understand the ruling and how you think that ruling changed the application of the ACA and the contraception mandate, so that we can get on the same page?



new topics

top topics
 
32
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join