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

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Destinyone

This limits government mandates.

This limits what a government can mandate.

I'll count this as a win.

No it doesn't. It limits who can be exempt from mandates.

To-may-to/to-mah-to.

It puts restrictions on mandates.

How so? The mandates are still in tact for all corporations that are publicly held. The mandates are alive and well. It's just that more people are eligible to be exempt from those mandates.

SCOTUS ruled that Title X should administer the birth control that Hobby Lobby won't. That puts the burden on the tax payer.

a reply to: beezzer

To be honest Beez..I didn't think Hobby Lobby would win this case in the beginning. But, I'm seeing what I would call a backlash against some of the deeds Obama has taken upon himself to implement.

Des

originally posted by: MOMof3
Congratulations! And to the Muslims, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses. Sharia law for you daughters and sons in the workplace, is on its way.

and no Jewish Hanukka in Hobby lobby either.

www.religionnews.com...

a reply to: Destinyone

I think the Court sees they are the only thing left to check a Presidents power. Reid is a doddering old fool that has his own party seriously speculating in public about his mental state and we have a House full of mice squeaking like they really wanna-be men some day. Thank Goodness we do have the Court and they are independent as of this point.

It won't always go our way of course..and it sure doesn't. The fact it can at ALL says the court still functions.

I wonder now,
Is it George W. Bush's fault that the Obama Administration lost the case?
Or
Is the SCOTUS mostly racist?

a reply to: windword

This ruling by the Scotus will make it easier for *We the People* to make our feelings known on the subject. It will also be used in upcoming elections to show the overstepping by this administration, is a grey area still open to challenges.

Des

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

This goes to the heart of Obamacare, in my humble opinion.

It sets limits to sweeping mandates.

It curtails government decrees.

It also opens the door for those who are for single-payer, however. Since government has no religious compulsion.

originally posted by: butcherguy
I wonder now,
Is it George W. Bush's fault that the Obama Administration lost the case?
Or
Is the SCOTUS mostly racist?

Kanye says, 'Yes'.

a reply to: dawnstar

I wonder how many Christians realize that their money (tax dollars) will pay for the morning after pill? I wonder if the folks who own Hobby Lobby realize that their own money (tax dollars) will pay for the morning after pill for their employees? Ooops...

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

This goes to the heart of Obamacare, in my humble opinion.

It sets limits to sweeping mandates.

It curtails government decrees.

It also opens the door for those who are for single-payer, however. Since government has no religious compulsion.

Well then, look for Obama to use this case as a reason to push for single payer.

a reply to: Destinyone

You failed to mention:

"Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion says that the government could pay for the coverage itself, so that women receive it.
live.scotusblog.com..."

The gov't failed to prove that it is the least restricted way because well there's one better!!
Passing the burden onto the taxpayers!! many of whom are individuals who just may have an even more devout belief system than hobby lobby!
And why just birth control?? Don't the truly devout whatevers have other strong beliefs both as businesses and individuals? Why just this narrow group here?
The concept of the laws should be carried over to other situations. The court seems to prevent this...
Coverage for transfusions and vacinations are explicitly not covered by this decision!

a reply to: Destinyone

Dream on. We'll see, but I have a feeling that women, in general, will feel attacked by this ruling and vote Democratic. I don't see the Republican party winning hearts and minds on this issue at all. This ruling stokes the fire of the "War on Women".

Does this also set the precedent that life starts at conception? Cause that is what this all boils down to right? That they don't want to cover abortion causing medications?
Or am I over thinking it

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: MOMof3
Congratulations! And to the Muslims, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses. Sharia law for you daughters and sons in the workplace, is on its way.

That's right every form of religious discrimination is now ok. All you have to do is say my faith says it should be this way.

Honestly did you even read the ruling or you just jumping in here to scare people?

Birth control is just the first stepping stone. They will find something next to try and force on employees.

a reply to: dawnstar

With the scandal the IRS is steeped in, and corruption running deep. I don't think it will make it to the taxpayer paying for squat. Obama's mandates have weakened to the point of wet toilet paper.

What do you think will happen when politicians running for office, start running ads opposing making the taxpayers pay for BC for everyone that has an exemption.

Des

I have never understood how pro teen pregnacy was Christian value. Then again the entire anti birth control thing seems be slowly abandoned by the major Christian religions (mostly because its members just ignore it) so I suppose in a decade it will not matter anyway.

a reply to: windword

We'll see, but I have a feeling that women, in general, will feel attacked by this ruling and vote Democratic.

The nice part about our system is that the SCOTUS is appointed. Voting doesn't necessarily count i the short term, as the justices are appointed for life and the elected legislative body has to approve them, regardless of the political leaning of the Executive branch picking the nominee at the time.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Does this also set the precedent that life starts at conception? Cause that is what this all boils down to right? That they don't want to cover abortion causing medications?
Or am I over thinking it

Absolutely! Hobby Lobby's entire complaint is based on bogus science. Pregnancy doesn't start until implantation, therefore, IUDs and hormonal contraception DON'T cause abortion.

The precedent is being set based on bogus science and superstition.

a reply to: kaylaluv

It will just put more people under gov't "guardianship" to one extent or another!
The goal is to have as many people not relying on our gov't not more!!
But ya!!!
A big win!! For religions!
A loss for the taxpayers who will be picking up even more of the healthcare tab!! (thought obama care was to make healthcare less expensive??)
And a bigger loss for many women who could conceivably lose the independence from the gov't charity programs!

a reply to: windword

I can see you don't buy BC. You do know you can go to any Planned Parenthood and get it for practically free.

Making it a mandate was never a good idea in the first place.

Des