Hobby Lobby wins Supreme Court case, limits the ACA contraception mandate

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: nenothtu

It's not a double standard. It's called responsibility and thinking with the big head.

But women are exempt from thinking with the big head because they don't have a little head to think with, and are therefore broken enough to have to just mindlessly spread 'em whenever?

How is that not a double standard?

a reply to: nenothtu

Ok. Now I see where you're coming from. To be honest, I really have no argument with your stance either. Other than to say what you see as a "First Step" in the right direction isn't going to work out the way you're hoping it will.

The idea that this is about taking a stand for the People's Rights against the Government is just the narrative of what's happening. This isn't about helping Real People get their power back. This is just how Private Fictional Persons known as Corporations Steal what used to be the Power of the People.

But good luck all the same. I think you'll be upset when you find out this is only a win for Fictional People.

Double Double

Again Again

Damn Damn

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Daedalus

wow...privacy is not an inalienable right?

it's amazing how people can completely gloss over, and skip entire parts of the bill of rights, when they don't fit with their agenda or argument...

How is privacy an inalienable right? Is a muti-family house, where everyone shares a bathroom a violation of a civil right? NO? I thought not.

Actually, it IS a violation of a "civil right" (as if such things actually existed!) where I live. That situation qualifies one as "homeless" here, due to the shared bathroom, and I personally know at least one couple that got into public housing on the basis of that very form of "homelessness".

You seem to be confusing "inalienable rights", which cannot be alienated i.e. separated, from an individual with so-called "civil rights", which are by definition issued by the government (hence the "civil" part of the descriptor), and so subject to revocation by same, and are therefore not "rights" at all, but mere priviledges in the disguise of a prettily worded wrapper.

How does privacy fit into the phrase "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

Under the heading "pursuit of happiness".

Is my "inalienable right to privacy" going to protect me from rape?

Rights do not protect you from anything at all - you have to exercise them, at which point they provide a remedy, which is up to YOU to take advantage of, or not.

That is your right, too.

a reply to: jrod

What a bigotted comment. Do you really think they don't know where babies come from? That's pretty asinine...

a reply to: nenothtu

There 'aint nobody that can tell me that women don't have an inalienable right to control what happens to their own bodies. I don't care how you color it, birth control is an inalienable right. You try to enforce laws that say otherwise and women will come at ya like "Planet of the Apes"! LOL

originally posted by: jrod

Common sense tells us abstinence does not work. To believe this will work for the masses is living in lala land. That is not a real world solution.

"Common sense"? Both common sense and logic dictate that if I do not have sex, my sperm will not magically transfer itself through the aether to impregnate some poor, unsuspecting female who had no intention of having sex with me. Therefore, "common sense" indicates that abstinence DOES work.

Unwanted pregnancies are a real world problem. Contraception is cheap, far cheaper than millions of infants who are now dependent on welfare.

Common sense, please!

What you are arguing here in favor of is not "common sense", but rather the complete failure and absence of it. Of course abstinence won't work IF IT'S NOT PRACTICED - but that's not the same as saying that it "doesn't work" period.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Daedalus

it's funny, because i could swear that this stuff is still available for purchase....

Wait? So, if your boss is a Christian, you have to pay for it twice?

Not if you don't buy into the insurance ponzi scheme to begin with. Your employer only has to OFFER the insurance - you don't have to accept it. I've refused it for years now, still do, and take care of my own medical issues if and when they arise.

I only have to pay once, if at all. For the last twenty years it's been "not at all".

a reply to: nenothtu

I'm not sure, but I think that the ACA says you HAVE to accept your employer's insurance, unless it fails to cover certain mandates, or you will be ineligible on the "exchanges".

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: nenothtu

There 'aint nobody that can tell me that women don't have an inalienable right to control what happens to their own bodies. I don't care how you color it, birth control is an inalienable right. You try to enforce laws that say otherwise and women will come at ya like "Planet of the Apes"! LOL

So I'm noticing!

The law says "there are circumstances where you've got to pay your own way", and the phrase "ape # crazy" doesn't even begin to cover the reaction!

They DO have the right to control their own bodies, and that is what I'm arguing for. Part of control is paying the piper yourself, which they seem to be balking at. Actions have consequences, and they want to have action without (personal) consequence. They want SOMEONE ELSE to bear the consequences.

Life doesn't work that way, they only wish it did.

ETA: Sorry, I have to go to work now so I can continue to pay my own way through life. By the time I get back home, this thread will have exploded again, and I'll be back at square one...

a reply to: nenothtu

The law says "there are circumstances where you've got to pay your own way"

Right! Just like gun owners have to pay for their own guns and ammunition, which is their right.

a reply to: nenothtu

That is YOU. Not the other 300million+ who are in the US. To expect the rest of the population to be as responsible as you or I, is living in a dream land.

Birth control is much cheaper than welfare

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: nenothtu

That is YOU. Not the other 300million+ who are in the US. To expect the rest of the population to be as responsible as you or I is living in a dream land.

Birth control is much cheaper than welfare

Abstinence is free.



I figured if you are going to repeat yourself I would too.

a reply to: thesaneone

Can you give an estimate of how many people, who are capable of making babies, that actually practice abstinence.?

Realism vs idealism

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: nenothtu

That is YOU. Not the other 300million+ who are in the US. To expect the rest of the population to be as responsible as you or I, is living in a dream land.

Birth control is much cheaper than welfare

I'm not responsible for the the other 300+ million, because I don't control them. What they do is (or ought to be) on their own dime. "Responsibility" and "control" are inexorably linked - how can one be responsible for something he has no control over?

Indeed, birth control IS much cheaper than welfare - but I should have to pay for neither if I am not the one doing the deed with them... again, I'm not responsible for situations I have no direct control of. As Windword pointed out, I don't see any of them running to pay for my guns and ammo. I do that myself, on my own dime.

I'm all for letting them learn the hard way, by facing their own consequences on their own dime, just as I have had to. It builds character, something sorely lacking in the US these days.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: thesaneone

Can you give an estimate of how many people, who are capable of making babies, that actually practice abstinence.?

Realism vs idealism

No reason we should - whether they practice or not is on them, and it is they who should have to pay the piper. I can't imagine caring whether they take the advice, or take the consequences... it's just that I am unwilling to take the consequences for them, so I offer the advice. they can either take it or leave it, but pay the piper as they go.

a reply to: jrod

Just a drive by tonight:

So...would you say that irresponsible people use contraception?

Would you say that most of the bottom 10% of our country are irresponsible people, or responsible?

There is a reason that the bottom 10% is ... procreating like rabbits. It's not because they are responsible.
It's not because they do not have access to FREE contraception (they do).

It's because they are irresponsible and could care less about using contraception.

So...while true that contraception is cheaper than welfare. Thats an obvious given. It is also true that the sentence is meaningless since the welfare queens already have access to free contraceptives and choose not to use them.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: nenothtu

I'm not sure, but I think that the ACA says you HAVE to accept your employer's insurance, unless it fails to cover certain mandates, or you will be ineligible on the "exchanges".

Ah, there's the rub. "Have to... or else" has never set well with me. It ended one of my marriages, in fact. Their "or else" in that case has no teeth with me, since I'm not playing the insurance ponzi game either way - through an employer or through the exchanges. BOTH are nothing more than ponzi schemes to enrich some corporation, and I'm not buying into either one. It's no real incentive to say "if you refuse to buy insurance, we aren't going to sell you insurance".

So then they drop back and punt, and say "you've got to buy insurance SOMEWHERE or we'll tax yer ass!" Meh. Another "or else", THINKING they are making an offer I can't refuse, just like the Godfather. I have no desire to get rich, so I have no problem staying under the earnings threshold to have to file taxes. problem solved.

originally posted by: jrod

This is about female birth control. Women have to jump through hoops to get on the pill or something else especially if they do not have decent health insurance.

Huh? What? Has it changed so much?

When my first wife was on the pill, we just went to an OB-GYN and got a prescription for them, filled it, and it was a done deal - and we paid our way every step of the way, it wasn't all that expensive.

Have things changed so much now? What sort of "hoops" do they have to jump through these days? Admittedly, I haven't bought ANY contraception in 19 or 20 years, so I really don't know.

A coupe of years ago, my daughter (who had no insurance either) could go to the doctor, get a script, get it filled, and it was a done deal even then, no hoops involved. Has it changed so much in TWO YEARS?

Condoms are expensive. If you are struggling to eat then condoms are not in the budget. Not being able to afford condoms will never stop people from having sex.

Say what? How much have condoms gotten to be these days? I'll check tomorrow and find out for myself, but surely they aren't much more than a dollar pop. If a guy has to spend 40 bucks a month on condoms, he ought to be ecstatic! that's once a day, and twice every 3 days! He can get that by picking up aluminum cans off the side of the road - unless he's just too busy having sex!

maybe if one cannot afford to even eat, one should perhaps see to that problem, rather than getting sidetracked into sex?

This is the real world people....

No it isn't. In the "real world", there is "cause" and "effect", actions have consequences. Come visit, spend a week in MY neighborhood if you want to see what the real world really looks like.

Birth control is much cheaper than welfare.

You know, that tired old politburo quote is just... tired and old.

Most of the welfare queens in this neighborhood freak the hell out if their fella gets a job, since that might cut into the gummint check. He can still pick up cans off the side of the road, though... but they won't let him use the condoms, since that might ALSO cut into the gummint check if they stop popping out little copies of themselves.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bbracken677

Birth control needs to be easier to access. The US is backward in regards to the rest of the world in health care.

Now females who work for hobby lobby will have to pay out of pocket for birth control. Why should they be forced to pay an extra $200+ a year on working class wages?

Guess who reaps the benefits on that?

Not the insurance pirates - ARGH!

You REALLY think the US is "backwards in regards to the rest of the world in health care"? Have YOU never been outside the US? Try getting a simple cut in Guyana and see how long you last with the local "health care".