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.

 

After Hobby Lobby Decision, Federal Court Grants Catholic Network Relief From Birth Control Mandate

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
The Founding Fathers would be so proud. No we will not make any laws respecting the establishment of religion but we will sure change laws to suit them. Score one for the biblethumpers who want to force their religious dogma on others.




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I think it's incredibly stupid to have one's healthcare tied to one's job. We ought to have a national health care system like every other 1st world country.

Alternatively, the employers could take the money they're paying now for healthcare, give raises to their employees, and have the employees purchase their own healthcare.

As if that would ever happen.


It's cases like this that will help for the push to a single payer system. Employees should not have their health policies should not be at the mercy of another person's faith.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: OrphanApology


Oh and in terms of companies not covering child birth in future, don't be surprised at that happening. This is a numbers game and there are very few things that are as expensive as popping out kids in the current healthcare system. In depending on what type of services you need it can creep up as far as 20k per birth.


What worries me is when these companies start refusing to cover child birth when it happens out of wedlock. It would be against their religion to pay for a "bastard" child.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
The Founding Fathers would be so proud. No we will not make any laws respecting the establishment of religion but we will sure change laws to suit them. Score one for the biblethumpers who want to force their religious dogma on others.





U.S. Constitution › First Amendment

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



ACA Clearly violates "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Who's on first?

Hobby Lobby and others have been unconstitutionally violated.

The initial ACA law is the culprit, not the victims.


"I'm go'in to Disneyland Hobby Lobby !!"



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I think it's incredibly stupid to have one's healthcare tied to one's job. We ought to have a national health care system like every other 1st world country.

Alternatively, the employers could take the money they're paying now for healthcare, give raises to their employees, and have the employees purchase their own healthcare.

As if that would ever happen.


Nobody seems to get that because they're too busy clamoring for the imaginary good old days. It's an antiquated and entirely asinine way of paying for healthcare that puts employees at a huge disadvantage. Why not bring back the company store? Factory owned houses? The more beholden to your employer you are, the more freedom you enjoy... right?

"YAAAY CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE TOO!" Except when that corporation does something that would be criminal if an individual did it and then all of sudden there's nobody to lock up because it's a corporation, not an individual! Who cares if corporate donors are buying elections and corrupting our legislative process.. I mean somebody needs to fight those DIRTY LIBERAL UNIONS? AMIRIGHT? For the record, unions aren't people either.

but but but it's a "closely held" private corporation. The Waltons own a controlling interest in Wal-Mart, does that mean that any decision that they make and claim is on religious grounds should affect the millions of already underpaid Wal-Mart employees?

There are many people who perceive the ruling as a rebuke of Obama and that makes it a win, regardless of the implications for society.





edit on 2014-7-1 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: OrphanApology


Oh and in terms of companies not covering child birth in future, don't be surprised at that happening. This is a numbers game and there are very few things that are as expensive as popping out kids in the current healthcare system. In depending on what type of services you need it can creep up as far as 20k per birth.


What worries me is when these companies start refusing to cover child birth when it happens out of wedlock. It would be against their religion to pay for a "bastard" child.


Are there cases pending ?

Sounds like .....



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


but but but it's a "closely held" private corporation. The Waltons own a controlling interest in Wal-Mart, does that mean that whatever that any decision they make that they can claim is on religious grounds should affect the millions of already underpaid Wal-Mart employees?


Waltons "own" Wal-Mart ?

Not even close


TPTB own Wal-Mart by a wide margin too.....

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) -- Major Holders








posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan
It's old school Catholic. No one there is going to be wanting birth control and if they do ... there is a gas station right around the corner that sells condoms for 50 cents a piece.


As a woman, I'd think you'd be aware that contraception is used for much more than birth control. But this isn't really about contraceptive care, it's about sticking it to Obama. The motivation I see is POLITICAL, not RELIGIOUS.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

This just happened a few days ago.

Give it time.

My prediction of what will be the first to go will be of course more birth control but also Hysterectomies and HIV medication for gay men. Also look out for vaccines possibly being no longer offered depending on the employer's belief in them.

Oh yeah and about a hundred other services.

Actually now that I think of it, this whole decision was probably a scheme to moves us closer to a single payer system.

Sigh

Free market where art thou? I love you for Lasik.

Time to go cry in a corner somewhere.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: MystikMushroom

health care should be the responsibility of the individual. When it becomes responsibility of government then you cede authority over your own life, health and turn that control to the state.


It's not the responsibility of the individual now. Something like 6-8% of the population has private insurance that is not through their employer. You're argument is not that it's a responsibility of the individual but rather that it's the responsibility of the employer — in theory saying ridiculous things like that sounds okay but in the real world, where we live, most people have health insurance through their employer.

We should have at least gotten a public option for people who don't want to line the pockets of the stockholders of insurance companies instead of what we got with the ACA which is basically just government subsidization of insurance companies.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: theantediluvian


but but but it's a "closely held" private corporation. The Waltons own a controlling interest in Wal-Mart, does that mean that whatever that any decision they make that they can claim is on religious grounds should affect the millions of already underpaid Wal-Mart employees?


Waltons "own" Wal-Mart ?

Not even close


TPTB own Wal-Mart by a wide margin too.....

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) -- Major Holders





Wrong. In 2011 the Walton heirs through a $15 billion stock buyback got their collective stake back to 51%.


% of Shares Held by All Insider and 5% Owners: 51%



As expected, each shareholder proposal presented at the meeting was voted down thanks to the Walton family’s 51% stake in Walmart, amounting to a veto. Last year, this included a proposal on corporate governance delivered by a former Bangladesh factory worker months after the deadly Rana Plaza disaster killed over 1,000 garment workers.


source

I'm sure I can track down a source for the 2011 buyback if you insist. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to lulz when you're trying to correct somebody and you're wrong

edit on 2014-7-1 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

No.

It should be the responsibility of the individual.

Not at the mercy of government OR insurance companies.

The whole problem is the high cost associated with healthcare. It is artificial.

Instead of looking for different ways to pay the high cost, we should be looking for ways to lower costs so that we aren't beholding to insurance companies OR government.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I said earlier that the motivation for this is political, not religious and here's the proof. Seems Hobby Lobby invests in companies who make... Wait for it... Plan B. The very drug they went to the Supreme Court about.

Hobby Lobby Invests in Birth Control



Employees have the option to put their retirement dollars -- and the money that Hobby Lobby contributes on their behalf -- into over a dozen different mutual funds.

At least eight of those funds have been invested in companies that produce contraceptives such as Teva Pharmaceutical (TEVA), Bayer (BAYRY), and Pfizer (PFE), according to a CNNMoney analysis. Teva makes Plan B. At least one fund also held Forest Laboratories, which makes a drug that is used to induce abortions.


Clearly, their "religious objections" only go so far. If they have to pay for something for their employees, they're against it, but if it can make them a buck, they're all for it.

The hypocrisy I'm seeing surrounding this case it phenomenal!



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Destinyone

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe
Another promise Obamacare failed to deliver on. It's a happy day IMO. The Constitution survived, albeit barely. I hope this is the start of an avalanche that ends with the end of Obamacare.

Wait until Obama finds his pen and his phone...


Yes...wait until he finds his pen and phone...out of ink, and the battery is dead....


Things just keep getting better and better. The King's throne is starting to flush.

Des


Let's just hope it isn't one of those new water saving thrones and it's able to take the whole load with just one flush.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I think it's incredibly stupid to have one's healthcare tied to one's job. We ought to have a national health care system like every other 1st world country.



Alternatively, the employers could take the money they're paying now for healthcare, give raises to their employees, and have the employees purchase their own healthcare.



As if that would ever happen.


It's tough to fund national healthcare while you're also funding the UN, World Bank, global military operations, the largest third world relief programs, free trade tariff losses, and subsidizing the lifestyles of half your population...



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: buster2010
The Founding Fathers would be so proud. No we will not make any laws respecting the establishment of religion but we will sure change laws to suit them. Score one for the biblethumpers who want to force their religious dogma on others.





U.S. Constitution › First Amendment

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



ACA Clearly violates "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Who's on first?

Hobby Lobby and others have been unconstitutionally violated.

The initial ACA law is the culprit, not the victims.


"I'm go'in to Disneyland Hobby Lobby !!"



The rights in the Constitution was written for the people not the companies they own. So Hobby Lobby and others did not have their rights violated because they have no rights.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Mutual and index funds are usually based on companies included in the snp 500 and other market indexes.

Not trying to give you hard time but they are not specific and while I agree that if they don't believe in birth control they shouldn't invest in funds that include plan B...at the same time it is pretty common for funds to include a high range of types of companies. Also if you invest in one it will more than likely include some type of pharmaceutical company.

Still hypocritical but it is fairly obvious this is done for the money aspect not the specific beliefs. By not providing contraceptives they have just saved themselves a whole bunch of money. Tube tyin', birth control, plan b, birth control for hormone disorders...savings, savings, savings.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: OrphanApology
Still hypocritical but it is fairly obvious this is done for the money aspect not the specific beliefs.


And that is my point. People are clamoring that religious beliefs have won and you can bet your paycheck that if it made them money, they'd go against their religious beliefs in a second. In fact, they do.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010


So Hobby Lobby and others did not have their rights violated because they have no rights.


Sorry the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

What's the "solution"?





The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise ofreligion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of theburden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furtheringthat compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and InstitutionalizedPersons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A).At issue here are regulations promulgated by the Department ofHealth and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection andAffordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), ...........

BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, ET AL. v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., ET AL.





edit on Jul-01-2014 by xuenchen because:




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Alternatively, the employers could take the money they're paying now for healthcare, give raises to their employees, and have the employees purchase their own healthcare.


One would think, but nooooooooooooo. I almost got laughed off the planet for suggesting this. You know what they did instead? You guessed it. Yep. Now we get to "contribute" more and more toward the cost of our own healthcare. While we don't get raises anymore. While our pensions are cut.

Because, see, it's all doublespeak, them having their cake and eating it too. and these days it all always, always, always benefits the corporment.

It really ought to not be linked to where you work or who you work for. Not even for freakning Congress, the useless jerks.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join