Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hobby Lobby Ruling and Corporate "Persons"

page: 11
9
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


but in this case you know obamacare- birth control- mandate

do the citizens have the right to chose not to cover their 16 year old daughters??

if not then hobby lobby does not have the same right as the citizens..
edit on 26-7-2014 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


but in this case you know obamacare- birth control- mandate

do the citizens have the right to chose not to cover their 16 year old daughters??

if not then hobby lobby does not have the same right as the citizens..


Parents certainly have every right to not pay for abortifacient contraceptives, if they believe thosse are wrong. Of course, I don't think a 16-year-old should be making any medical decisions without parental knowledge and consent, either. I am certain you and I disagree on that point.

Obamacare = illegal.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes




The big picture is employee benefits are just that; benefits. They should be set by the employer, and if the employee agrees, the government shouldn't be involved, unless some crime was involved.


That's your opinion, and I happen to disagree. I think the government has a compelling interest of ensuring public health, safety and welfare through programs, policies and standards.


In this case, the issue is abortion. Let's not mince words. The public isn't serve by abortion. As for welfare, that's not working out too well, either.


originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


No one has a "right" to contraception.


Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled three separate times that women's rights to contraception is a constitutionally protected right. And again, I refer you to Title X.


The Title X Family Planning program was enacted in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Service Act (Public Law 91-572 Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs). Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services.


The court was wrong. That decision is well beyond the limits that should be set on the government.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


Hobby Lobby and co-plaintiff Mennonite Conestoga Wood Specialties object to covering certain contraception, as the Affordable Care Act requires, because they believe them to cause abortions — a belief at odds with how the medical community says they work. (The morning-after pill works by delaying ovulation, just like regular birth control, though explaining these scientific distinctions in the face of religious beliefs now feels like wasted breath.


nymag.com...

Just like the Young Earth Creationists, these abortion claims are at odds with science.

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



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


Hobby Lobby and co-plaintiff Mennonite Conestoga Wood Specialties object to covering certain contraception, as the Affordable Care Act requires, because they believe them to cause abortions — a belief at odds with how the medical community says they work. (The morning-after pill works by delaying ovulation, just like regular birth control, though explaining these scientific distinctions in the face of religious beliefs now feels like wasted breath.


nymag.com...

Just like the Young Earth Creationists, these abortion claims are at odds with science.



Right.....because the medical community is always completely honest.......oh, wait.....forgot about all those drugs they knew were unsafe and prescribed anyway.....

Bad argument.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

can you show me where in the disaster called obamacare where that the right to not pay for contraceptives
isn't taken away?? If you consider that a business is paying for contraceptives than you also would consider that the parent would be doing the exact same thing when they are buying the policy would you not??
you can't say that this is because the business owners should have the SAME rights as the citizens and then give them rights that the citizens don't have!

and I am sorry there's been other cases with businesses that have included all contraceptives that have been exempted by the courts since hobby lobby so it's more than just access to those four that hobby lobby had a problem with and you can't claim that because of the decision that the women affected won't be able to get the contraceptives (or if they can't it won't be for long because they've already worked out a plan to provide it another way..it will just be provided by the taxpayers now thank you!!)

make no mistake about it. I believe that birth control is just as valid of a health need as any other that is covered by insurance and therefor shouldn't be taken out of the coverage but well the supreme court has decided that some BUINSESSES should have their religious rights protected. But to me instead of them providing it to the businesses
once they had determined that this was an infraction against their right to practice their religion they should have continued onward and just decided to protect the people!

and you woudn't want to know how I would work that one out!!



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


Yeah, that's right. Doctors are lying about contraception to trick women into abortions. Mkay....'cuz that makes a lot of sense.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


but in this case you know obamacare- birth control- mandate

do the citizens have the right to chose not to cover their 16 year old daughters??

if not then hobby lobby does not have the same right as the citizens..


Parents certainly have every right to not pay for abortifacient contraceptives, if they believe thosse are wrong. Of course, I don't think a 16-year-old should be making any medical decisions without parental knowledge and consent, either. I am certain you and I disagree on that point.

Obamacare = illegal.


I believe the millions of taxpaying women shouldn't be forced to pay for Viagra pills, testicular cancer, or prostrate cancer, but, apparently that part of the ACA is ok.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


Hobby Lobby and co-plaintiff Mennonite Conestoga Wood Specialties object to covering certain contraception, as the Affordable Care Act requires, because they believe them to cause abortions — a belief at odds with how the medical community says they work. (The morning-after pill works by delaying ovulation, just like regular birth control, though explaining these scientific distinctions in the face of religious beliefs now feels like wasted breath.


nymag.com...

Just like the Young Earth Creationists, these abortion claims are at odds with science.



Right.....because the medical community is always completely honest.......oh, wait.....forgot about all those drugs they knew were unsafe and prescribed anyway.....

Bad argument.


bad argument??....more so than believing what a mythical god supposedly told men 2000 years ago? contraceptive pills and IUD's have been around for decades now, I think women are smart enough to know if they work, they don't need a bunch of religious men to tell them what is good or bad for their own bodies.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Ha, you forgot to mention the penile pumps that most employers' insurance also pays for!



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: jimmyx

Ha, you forgot to mention the penile pumps that most employers' insurance also pays for!


yeah right!...those are mentioned in the bible under bullcrapitus chapter 1 verse 5



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Here is a good example of exactly what I'm trying to point out with this thread. So for all those out there who still don't agree, let me once again show you why you're wrong. This time with Video.

If Corporations Are People, Why Not Become One Yourself?


Here's a little highlight from the article:


But the best perk of being treated like an incorporeal corporation? Even if you killed someone, stole a house, funded a genocidal regime or terrorize the global economy, you wouldn’t go to jail. At worst, you’d pay a fine. Sure, you could be executed for your crimes — sort of — by having your charter revoked or by being driven to bankruptcy by onerous penalties, but you could always return from the dead with a different name but much of the same DNA. To err is human; to err and bounce back unscathed, you really need to be a company.
Washington Post Article



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
bad argument??....more so than believing what a mythical god supposedly told men 2000 years ago? contraceptive pills and IUD's have been around for decades now, I think women are smart enough to know if they work, they don't need a bunch of religious men to tell them what is good or bad for their own bodies.


Yes, bad argument. You want to place your faith in medicine, when it's known that medicines are frequently quite harmful, and don't always do just what was planned, but you want to criticize someone's religious beliefs? Your bias is showing.



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


but in this case you know obamacare- birth control- mandate

do the citizens have the right to chose not to cover their 16 year old daughters??

if not then hobby lobby does not have the same right as the citizens..


Parents certainly have every right to not pay for abortifacient contraceptives, if they believe thosse are wrong. Of course, I don't think a 16-year-old should be making any medical decisions without parental knowledge and consent, either. I am certain you and I disagree on that point.

Obamacare = illegal.


I believe the millions of taxpaying women shouldn't be forced to pay for Viagra pills, testicular cancer, or prostrate cancer, but, apparently that part of the ACA is ok.


What do cancer treatments have to do with abortion pills? Oh, that's right, nothing! So, not only do you agree with pills that can kill an unborn child, you also think cancer patients don't deserve treatment. Gotcha. We are done.



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


Yeah, that's right. Doctors are lying about contraception to trick women into abortions. Mkay....'cuz that makes a lot of sense.


Does when they makes tons of money from the procedures.

Forget that part of the issue?



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Sorry, but much of your post didn't make a lot of sense to me. I think perhaps you were typing when very emotional.

What was that about parents paying, and how do you relate that to this decision?



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

more like fighting the keyboard to get it to do what I want.
it's simple
if a corp has moral issues about providing insurance to their employees with birth control coverage reckon some parents just might have the same issue when it comes to their daughters?
ya???
well can the parents avoid providing insurance with bc included without being penalized by it?
or did they just protect the corps (treating like people of course) while the people's religious integrity is still not protected when it comes to obamacare?

and while were are at it
women have brought up the ERA every in every term in congress for at least a century!!
we still don't have any constitutional protections!! nice of them to allow the corps to step in line in front of us also!



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar

. . . and while were are at it, women have brought up the ERA in every term in congress for at least a century!!

We still don't have any constitutional protections!! Nice of them to allow the corps to step in line in front of us also!



True. "They" say it is unnecessary and a waste of time, because women already have full equality.

Who the hell is "they"? Old white Christian men mostly.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


but in this case you know obamacare- birth control- mandate

do the citizens have the right to chose not to cover their 16 year old daughters??

if not then hobby lobby does not have the same right as the citizens..


Parents certainly have every right to not pay for abortifacient contraceptives, if they believe thosse are wrong. Of course, I don't think a 16-year-old should be making any medical decisions without parental knowledge and consent, either. I am certain you and I disagree on that point.

Obamacare = illegal.


I believe the millions of taxpaying women shouldn't be forced to pay for Viagra pills, testicular cancer, or prostrate cancer, but, apparently that part of the ACA is ok.


What do cancer treatments have to do with abortion pills? Oh, that's right, nothing! So, not only do you agree with pills that can kill an unborn child, you also think cancer patients don't deserve treatment. Gotcha. We are done.

If God gave the person the cancer then why should any religious person want to pay for the insurance to try and get rid of it? Wouldn't that be denying God's will? It's the same with Viagra and other ways to help men get an erection if wanted you to be able to get one then you would be able to. It would be against God's will for HL or any other religious company to pay for their insurance.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee
it's much easier to change the law than it is the constitution
this way if they deem it necessary they can revoke any rights women have for the "sake of society"..

now I am wondering if they will deem the corps constitutional rights of religion over a women's right to work.






top topics



 
9
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join