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: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: OrphanApology

Under Obamacare, there is already a large percentage of the population who are being "denied" vaccinations.
Say you can only afford the ACA Bronze plan.

You can barely afford the premium, let alone the hefty deductible. from $5000 to more than $6300
Vaccinations are NOT covered until you meet that huge deductible.

With food, gas, utilities, clothing and rent.....doesn't leave much for frills like vaccines.

ETA
And, FTR, drugs are not covered either until the hug deductible is paid....including birth control pills.
Or office visits.
Broken bones.
ER visits.
Chiropractic.
Psychiatric.
Or other birth control options.

Although, if get admitted to a hospital, the deductible drops to about $4000.....but then you have a 40% coinsurnace to pay....until to get to the maximum out of pocket...which in the Bronze plan equals the deductible in the beginning of my post.
edit on Tue Jul 1 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

well corporations have had corporate person-hood since 1819 en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...


Corporate personhood is an American legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. For example, corporations may contract with other parties and sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people" apart from their shareholders, executives, and managers, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens. Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad – 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the court reporter, Bancroft Davis,[1] noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice Morrison Waite began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[2] While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution."[3] This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since.


www.infoplease.com... this link will let you know who the supreme court justices were appointed by and their political affiliation during each of these decisions on corporate person hood and also of note not one supreme court Justice in history has been an atheist and the religious affiliations of the past are an interesting statistic in this

en.wikipedia.org... and one of the key rulings on the issue so if people have a problem with this ruling they need to campaign not against hobby lobby or the religious but to their representatives to amend the us constitution to remedy the issue of corporate person-hood that is at the crux of the issue



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

The government always does the opposite of whatever it says it's going to do.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

wiki.answers.com...


Under normal circumstances, a Supreme Court justice is awarded a lifetime commission. A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution. Article III, Section 1 states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices "during good behavior." "The phrase "good behavior" has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness 'high crimes and misdemeanors" encompasses. In addition, any federal judge may prosecuted in the criminal courts for criminal activity. If found guilty of a crime in a federal district court, the justice would face the same type of sentencing any other criminal defendant would. The district court could not remove him/her from the Bench. However, any justice found guilty in the criminal courts of any felony would certainly be impeached and, if found guilty, removed from office. In the United States, impeachment is most often used to remove corrupt lower-court federal judges from office, but it's not unusual to find disgruntled special interest groups circulating petitions on the internet calling for the impeachment of one or all members of the High Court.
according to this link you can attempt to impeach a sitting supreme court justice for a limited few situations but as that would hinge on the house(R) wanting to get rid of them i dont see that happening at this moment . and in some circumstances it could in theory call into question previous rulings ie the current justices in a split majority approved the aca if removed for reasons of insanity or corruption it would then call all previous rulings into question then the courts would again have to revisit it perhaps changing the outcome which may not be what every one wants



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:30 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.


hey buster, who was forcing who, again?

what happened to freedom of religion?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: buster2010

OMG!!!

I didn't realize that they couldn't go out on their own and purchase them!

(sing with me!. . . Entitlement! Entitlement! All I want forever is entitlement!)


Do you now have an understanding what ban means? You were the person that said the company didn't ban anything.
edit on 1-7-2014 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:36 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.


right, let us know when that happens.

don't want a baby? don't have sex.

oh wait, there is welfare for that.
edit on 3119377931pm2014 by tsingtao because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Dear buster2010,

I can't imagine how we manage to go by each other so completely. I'm more baffled by your answer than I was before.


It has to do with the Hobby Lobby case. They changed the law to follow the wishes of a religion which goes directly against the first amendment.


The Court didn't change any law. They found that, in the case of the four methods seen as abortifacients, the HHH regulation violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law passed by Congress. Since the regulation didn't follow the law, it was void.

There was no law change, no First Amendment issue, no religion requested anything. Are we talking about the same case?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: OrphanApology
a reply to: beezzer

No it's useless if you decide to do any number of health related things that could be construed as being tied to birth control at all. When I was younger I had a girlfriend who had anemia due to abnormal bleeding that went on birth control. That's just one example. At time if she didn't have insurance she would not have been able to afford that. She also later had to have ablation for same problem and have tubes tied because of ablation.

Hobby Lobby employees make minimum wage. These are not rich folk.

This is just a mess of a healthcare system and this makes it to where now women who are sitting in office may have to make choices not to receive bad care because of working # wages and paying for overpriced mandated insurance that doesn't cover their needs.



your g-friend should have been covered under any ins. it's medical, not elective.

HL employees make more than min wages.

and she should do her due diligence about her own health care.
of course it's more expensive, who do you think pays for all the people that don't have insurance and policies that have a ton of stuff you don't need?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: buster2010


It has to do with the Hobby Lobby case. They changed the law to follow the wishes of a religion which goes directly against the first amendment.


Of course that was after the government made the law that made the first infringement and that part of the law was just found unconstitutional !!

You can't have it both ways it seems.

Big Dilemma.




Companies cannot have religious rights. Rights are for people not companies.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I hope you people are prepped for the backlash when it comes. There are millions who are totally pissed that Xtians have been declared (by this decision) to be a class of American citizens with special rights - principle among them, the right to ignore any laws that the rest of us are subject to if they feel that the law(s) violate their own personal interpretation of what their reading of the bible tells them. They may take a month or two to really get moving on their reaction (unlike you hyper-reactive conspiracy anti-everything types) but it's coming.

If Hobby Lobby was owned by Muslims, you'd be sh*tting yourselves over this ruling, but the truth is that now any "closely held" for-profit Muslim-owned business can successfully sue the government to force their employees to adhere to their personal version of Islamic law, since lawsuits are won and lost on legal precedent - which is what this Hobby Lobby decision just established in favor of religious convictions over secular government mandates.

These inane Xtians are going to keep pushing this foolishness until someone gets fed up with all of them and burns one of them out of business, but that's not going to be the end of it. It's really sad. The Evangelicals in this society are convinced that the world is persecuting them, and yet they keep trying as hard as they can to make ordinary people want to cut them down and get rid of them. It's like they have a real desire to die for their idiot religion, and all the rest of us want of them is to just stop busting our balls 24/7 with their self-entitled bullsh*t.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010


Companies cannot have religious rights. Rights are for people not companies.


The Supreme Court said the "religious rights" are with the owners in this case.

The law, and HHS, and IRS say companies have "religious rights" when they register as non profits.

I bet that changes however.

The "Corporate Sole" is coming soon......



Religious corporation

A religious corporation is a type of religious non-profit organization, which has been incorporated under the law. Often these types of corporations are recognized under the law on a subnational level, for instance by a state or province government. The government agency responsible for regulating such corporations is usually the official holder of records, for instance a state Secretary of State. In the United States, religious corporations are formed like all other nonprofit corporations by filing articles of incorporation with the state. Religious corporation articles need to have the standard tax exempt language the IRS requires.

In the United States, religious corporations are subject to less rigorous state and federal filing and reporting requirements than many other tax-exempt organizations, such as mutual benefit nonprofit corporations, or public benefit nonprofit corporations. Depending on the state in which they are located, they may also be exempt from some of the inspections or regulations governing non-religious groups performing the same services.


Corporation sole

Religious corporations are permitted to designate a person to act in the capacity of corporation sole. This is a person who acts as the official holder of title on property, etcetera.

Religious corporation




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: buster2010

Dear buster2010,

I can't imagine how we manage to go by each other so completely. I'm more baffled by your answer than I was before.


It has to do with the Hobby Lobby case. They changed the law to follow the wishes of a religion which goes directly against the first amendment.


The Court didn't change any law. They found that, in the case of the four methods seen as abortifacients, the HHH regulation violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law passed by Congress. Since the regulation didn't follow the law, it was void.

There was no law change, no First Amendment issue, no religion requested anything. Are we talking about the same case?

With respect,
Charles1952

Abortion isn't against the law so Hobby Lobby had no legal standing to make their case. The law was changed solely for religious reasons which goes against the first amendment. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is for people not the companies they own. As it says in the Religious Freedom Restoration 42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 - Free exercise of religion protected


A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

Notice it says person not company.

Hobby Lobby is not a person it is a company. If the owner was paying for the healthcare out of his pocket then he could claim this as a defense but he isn't the medical plan is paid for by the company.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: NorEaster


I hope you people are prepped for the backlash when it comes.


Absolutely prepped.

Thanks for the heads up warnings.




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: buster2010

The Supreme Court said the "religious rights" are with the owners in this case.

The law, and HHS, and IRS say companies have "religious rights" when they register as non profits.




Hobby Lobby is a for-profit company. This ruling will open floodgates that you're not going to be happy with.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: NorEaster


I hope you people are prepped for the backlash when it comes.


Absolutely prepped.

Thanks for the heads up warnings.



Think so, eh?

With your pea-shooter and camo underoos?

Yeah ... we'll see there Rambo. We'll see.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: buster2010


Companies cannot have religious rights. Rights are for people not companies.


The Supreme Court said the "religious rights" are with the owners in this case.

The law, and HHS, and IRS say companies have "religious rights" when they register as non profits.

I bet that changes however.

The "Corporate Sole" is coming soon......



Religious corporation

A religious corporation is a type of religious non-profit organization, which has been incorporated under the law. Often these types of corporations are recognized under the law on a subnational level, for instance by a state or province government. The government agency responsible for regulating such corporations is usually the official holder of records, for instance a state Secretary of State. In the United States, religious corporations are formed like all other nonprofit corporations by filing articles of incorporation with the state. Religious corporation articles need to have the standard tax exempt language the IRS requires.

In the United States, religious corporations are subject to less rigorous state and federal filing and reporting requirements than many other tax-exempt organizations, such as mutual benefit nonprofit corporations, or public benefit nonprofit corporations. Depending on the state in which they are located, they may also be exempt from some of the inspections or regulations governing non-religious groups performing the same services.


Corporation sole

Religious corporations are permitted to designate a person to act in the capacity of corporation sole. This is a person who acts as the official holder of title on property, etcetera.

Religious corporation








Hobby Lobby is not a non profit religious corporation. Because if it were then the owner couldn't have become a billionaire if it was non profit now could he?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

It's that pesky Constitution again.....



The Dictionary Act states that “the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.”



Hobby Lobby and the Dictionary Act

The "Dictionary Act" is also mentioned in the Hobby Lobby ruling.

[ you should have that by now ]




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: NorEaster


Hobby Lobby is a for-profit company. This ruling will open floodgates that you're not going to be happy with.


I'm prepared.

I'm not afraid.




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: NorEaster


Think so, eh?

With your pea-shooter and camo underoos?

Yeah ... we'll see there Rambo. We'll see.


I'm not shaking.

I'm am strong.




new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join