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.

 

Hobby Lobby Ruling and Corporate "Persons"

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob




Except you haven't. There is nothing in the law, or the SCOTUS ruling, that denies women access to that medication. As another poster noted, they could walk into a clinic and get it for free.


That's not true. You're wrong and your ignorance doesn't change that. No woman can walk into a "clinic" and get an IUD for free, or any of the other objectional contraception. Additionally, the law that allows for these disenfranchised women continued access, by way of the 3rd party provision, has been suspended due to the recent 3rd party SCOTUS injunction, that I keep pointing out.

These women, ten of thousands of them, who are paying insurance premiums DO NOT have access to the services that are guaranteed them under the law. That is a violation of their 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under the law. There is no equity.


edit on 21-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

Your argument is non-sequitur. The Religious Freedom and Restoration IS unconstitutional and has been ruled so by SOCTUS in 1997, regardless of your machinations in logic.


It was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. However, it continues to be applied to the federal government
en.wikipedia.org...



As of 1996, the year before the RFRA was found unconstitutional as applied to states, 337 cases had cited RFRA in its three year time range
en.wikipedia.org...


What part of "unconstitutional" don't you understand?
edit on 21-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: EvillerBob

That's not true. You're wrong and your ignorance doesn't change that. No woman can walk into a "clinic" and get an IUD for free, or any of the other objectional contraception.



Not according to other posters. As I have never been in that position, I have placed myself at the mercy of those with more knowledge in the area - not to suggest that others have had to use that facility, but they may have more awareness of what is available.

You might also want to lodge a complaint against the Women's Health Free Clinic in New York, for falsely stating that they provide (among other things) free "Birth control pills, Depo-Provera shot, IUDs, condoms", "Emergency contraception (Plan B or "morning-after pill")", and "Medication abortion (up to 9 weeks since the last menstrual period)" - you know, all the things you say "No woman can walk into a "clinic" and get" for free...

I still believe that you have a fundamental flaw in your comprehension, just as you believe I have in mine. I suspect we will never reach a conclusion that is satisfactory to both of us on the matter. I have no objection to you being wrong, if that helps, I think it's always healthy for people to be willing to take intellectual risks.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: EvillerBob

Your argument is non-sequitur. The Religious Freedom and Restoration IS unconstitutional and has been ruled so by SOCTUS in 1997, regardless of your machinations in logic.
...
What part of "unconstitutional" don't you understand?


All well and good. You might want to re-read what I posted, though, because I specifically looked at the matter from the Constitutional angle not the legislation. Whether or not it is unconstitutional was not relevant to my point as I did not take that piece of legislation into account in the first place.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

LOL "Free Clinics" aren't free. They're done on "sliding fee" basis, based on your income and your insurance. These women HAVE insurance that should cover these costs, but the clinics are being denied the "3rd party permission slip", required by the ACA for them to recoop the costs, because the religious nutter employers are saying that signing the form, authorizing the insurance company to pick up cost, is too burdensome for their religious beliefs. Thus, these women are our of luck, and up a creek without a paddle.

That IS a violation of their 14th Amendment rights of equal protection under the law.

PS: Not all internet posters post the truth and some even continue to post lies, in spite of knowing the truth, on purpose!



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob




You might want to re-read what I posted, though, because I specifically looked at the matter from the Constitutional angle not the legislation.


Well, I disagree with your take on the "constitutionality" of denying women contraception coverage. However, that doesn't matter, because the SCOTUS ruling clearly states that the COURT based their decision on the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act.

If Hobby Lobby attorneys thought they could win on constitutional merit they would have presented a constitutional case, but they didn't. Their case was based on the RFRA.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Hobby lobby still supports 16 other forms of birth control.. Elli and the morning after pill are what they do not want to cover.. those are abortion causing pills..so you better re think you non-government funded abortion info. They are only restricting certain coverage not all of it, that is not terribly bad, its a choice the company has made.

some employers have that right to restrict what employes can and cannot do - case in point, companies firing employees who smoke..that is a sucky rule. (I smoke BTW) but even if the employee did not smoke while at work but only on their off hours, they will be subject to termination.. really?



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: displacedTexan
a reply to: windword

Hobby lobby still supports 16 other forms of birth control..



So what. This is not about math. One is too many.

It is none of their business what I choose for birth control.

They are a business, not a damn church.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: displacedTexan




Hobby lobby still supports 16 other forms of birth control.. Elli and the morning after pill are what they do not want to cover.. those are abortion causing pills..so you better re think you non-government funded abortion info. They are only restricting certain coverage not all of it, that is not terribly bad, its a choice the company has made.


It's even more offensive that Hobby Lobby wants to go through your medicine cabinet, restricting what drugs and devices your doctor can prescribe to you, than to just eliminate the whole category. But, that's basically what this SCOTUS decision does, it exempts all corporations claiming religious objections from the entire contraception mandate, not just 4 kinds that Hobby Lobby doesn't like.

SCOTUS didn't rule on contraception or what methods are viable. It ruled on "sincere belief" and didn't even bother to be concerned about defining what that means.


some employers have that right to restrict what employes can and cannot do - case in point, companies firing employees who smoke..that is a sucky rule. (I smoke BTW) but even if the employee did not smoke while at work but only on their off hours, they will be subject to termination.. really?


Apples and oranges.




posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

then it should be none of your business on what they choose to cover..they are paying for it, they can control cost and limit some coverages..simple.

also, if your not happy with what your company covers, you can always find new employment that will provide the coverage you want.. you have THAT choice.
edit on 21-7-2014 by displacedTexan because: reply



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


not really, if a company can make this determination...then they can limit some forms of birth control they disagree with. it is the same thing.. i agree its not always fair and not always right..but it is their money..their choice.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: displacedTexan

That may be your independent opinion, but it has nothing to with the ACA, the spirit of the law, the Constitutionality of the ruling or the denial of Constitutional rights of equality and equity to female employees.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Windword, let me commend you on debating this with law and constitutional rights.

I'm too pissed off to do that.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I know. I'm too pissed for small talk!



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: displacedTexan

It's even more offensive that Hobby Lobby wants to go through your medicine cabinet, restricting what drugs and devices your doctor can prescribe to you...


No, Hobby Lobby wants to choose what drugs they will pay for to go in your medicine cabinet. Employees choose to work for HL, and they are free to purchase any legal contraceptive they choose.

No one is denied a choice. That is a constitutional win/win. EvillerBob spelled it out clearly from a legal perspective. I suggest you re-consider his points.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: displacedTexan

It's even more offensive that Hobby Lobby wants to go through your medicine cabinet, restricting what drugs and devices your doctor can prescribe to you...


No, Hobby Lobby wants to choose what drugs they will pay for to go in your medicine cabinet. Employees choose to work for HL, and they are free to purchase any legal contraceptive they choose.

No one is denied a choice. That is a constitutional win/win. EvillerBob spelled it out clearly from a legal perspective. I suggest you re-consider his points.


HL did not make this an issue of cost.

They made it a religious issue. They are a business forcing a religious belief.

They "believe" specific reproduction methods stop an egg from implanting. In other words abortion on the possibility there could be a pregnancy.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

This case wasn't about Hobby Lobby. It was about the Law of the Land. It wasn't about 4 kinds of contraception, it was about denying women choice.

The SCOTUS decsion set a precedent that effects ALL closely held corporations, about 90% of all American Corporation. ALL of them are exempt from the entire contraception mandate. But that doesn't mean that women still dont have the right to full access of these contraception methods, at no extra cost.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist




That is a constitutional win/win. EvillerBob spelled it out clearly from a legal perspective. I suggest you re-consider his points.


I suggest that you consider this. Every woman who pay her insurance premium is entitled to full access to all the legal contraception that is approved by the FDA. That is because the government find that public health, safety and welfare are in the the best interest of the people that the government represents.


FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection
prop1.org...

(b) EXCEPTION. -- Government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person --

(1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.


SCOTUS ruled that the government had compelling interest, but hadn't found the least restrictive means.

SCOTUS didn't give Hobby Lobby, or anyone else, the right to pick and choose what they paid for. They gave them an exemption based on the RFRA, not the Constitution.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I PM'd you what I think is an interesting article.

Chose not to post it in thread, as it might derail your current debate.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


I suggest that you consider this. Every woman who pay her insurance premium is entitled to full access to all the legal contraception that is approved by the FDA. That is because the government find that public health, safety and welfare are in the the best interest of the people that the government represents.


Then ACA "discriminates" against Women by forcing people who can't get employer coverage (the 50 or more full time rule) either by law or no job ?

They then must by their own policies (by law) and pay for everything connected including a fine if necessary.

The ACA is unConstitutional.






new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join