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

a reply to: adjensen

Don't worry. Viagra and penis pumps still will be covered.

Amazing how this has been twisted into a handout/entitlement debate.

Birth control pills are extremely cheap. Wholesale costs are in the $1 per month range, my girlfriend pays $20 a month out of pocket for her pills because she does not have insurance.

If a women is paying for health insurance, then BC pills need to be covered. Why should she pay an extra $250 a year when she is already paying for health care?

a reply to: jrod

Amazing how this has been twisted into a handout/entitlement debate.

How is that amazing? It IS an entitlement issue.

Your "cheaper to give poor people big pharma drugs than to pay for welfare" argument has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, which is whether Hobby Lobby employees are entitled to free birth control that the company objects to on moral grounds.

originally posted by: zackli
a reply to: Stormdancer777

That is a slippery slope, if you think it is a good thing for government to control the population.

Yes, I should have been more specific. It is specifically the part of the population who is the least likely to be able to afford an abortion that the government has a vested interest in controlling. Couples who have lower levels of education tend to have more children. [1] [2] It is a self-perpetuating cycle, wherein those with the lowest levels of education, who also have the lowest expected lifetime earning potential, have lower wages and can't afford to go to school to break that cycle. Their kids obviously will be stuck with the same options when they grow up and may even have been socialized not to want to break the big family tradition.

[1]: forwomen.org...
[2]: www.who.int...

Nice idea, but it would never work. Not until the breeding via social programs is halted in it's tracks, as a means to obtaining money. We have a whole socioeconomic level of people, generations in the making, that depend solely on making babies to get more money and benefits. They won't use birth control of any kind, and are damn proud of how many kids they pop out, like it's a status symbol.

Government needs to put a cap on how many children this segment of society can be paid to support. Notice I didn't say stop them from having babies. Stop paying them to have endless babies.

JMOHO...

Des

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: jrod

Amazing how this has been twisted into a handout/entitlement debate.

How is that amazing? It IS an entitlement issue.

It is about entitlement but not the employee's. This is about entitlement for the Corporations and whether or not they have to pay for something they don't want to. It's not about Morality, that can be shown multiple different ways.

That should be obvious since who does this "Benefit" but stays the same for everyone else??? It benefits Certain Corporations and that's it. Even just being a Non Religious Corporation but fitting all other criteria doesn't allow them the same "Benefit". Nor does it "Benefit" anyone else as an Individual either. Seems strange since it's Actually Real People that hold Religious Morals in the first place and not Corporations!! So you can see that all such arguments are total BS.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

If men don't want to be "extorted" for child support they should keep their zippers closed.

Oh my!

Double standard much?

OR - is it now OK to say "if women don't want to pay for their own birth control or face a potential pregnancy they should keep their legs shut"?

I recall getting cobbed for a statement like that, but it seems that it's ok now?

Can't have it both ways... well, I guess you CAN, but they call that a "double standard".

In extrapolating further, the final decision is the person whose body bears the burden and responsibility.

So you are totally correct. You cannot have it both ways.

Both parental units have decisions, on some levels equal, in the process, but those decisions are not necessarily simultaneous nor mutual. The man's decision is to unzip, perhaps with someone he really doesn't know all that well.

The woman has the final decision.

"the man's decision was to unip", but the woman is so mindless that she made no conscious decision in whether or not to spread 'em? Her knees just fell apart of their own volition while she was out shopping or something, and now SHE has a mess to clean up?

I'm torn. I don't know whether your statement is closeted misogyny or simply sexist...

The flood gates have now been opened for any company claiming "religious reason" to discriminate againt women, gays and anyone else that doesn't meet their religious standards.

news.yahoo.com...

www.forbes.com...


My predictions of a Corporate Theocracy seems to be right on the money....

rhrealitycheck.org...

Remember Orwell's "Animal Farm" All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

I'm aware of that particular strain of libertarian thought. I just don't happen to agree with it or with you in this case. The first ten Constitutional amendments are called "the Bill of Rights" for a reason. Two centuries of political thought have echoed the idea that the Constitution establishes, in a particular place and time, certain rights and not others. It is clearly a list of those rights that are recognized and embodied in that Document as regards the body politic of the US citizenry.

I reckon those "two centuries of thinkers" missed the fine print in the constitutional contract. Nefariously hidden amongst those first ten amendments is he Ninth, which explicitly states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"Retained by". "Retained" means "kept", as in already existent, not "newly created", as in "made up on the fly by legislators and then handed over".

"Enumerated". "Enumerated" means "counted, acknowledged". It DOES NOT mean "created, issued, given by, or granted by". As an example, I can walk down the street and enumerated the cars parked on the curb. That doesn't mean I created those cars or issued them to their owners - they were already there. I just counted the ones I could see on the street. It also doesn't mean that I created the cars that people have parked in their garages. I didn't "enumerate" those cars, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, or belong to their owners.

You are welcome to use a different nomenclature as you choose, but in reality, it is a minor point without regress to archaic common law terms, which are off topic in this case.

"Minor point"? "Different nomenclature"? I use the nomeclature of the constitution itself. It's not I who is using a "different nomenclature". YOUR rights may be "minor points" to you - but all you have to do if fail to exercise them, and it's as if they were not, although they still are - you just reject them is all, you can't destroy them. YOU may give the rights to your rights to the State, but don't expect all of us to.

a reply to: nenothtu

"the man's decision was to unip", but the woman is so mindless that she made no conscious decision in whether or not to spread 'em? Her knees just fell apart of their own volition while she was out shopping or something, and now SHE has a mess to clean up?

Is that not how it works? Maybe I shouldn't have slept through sex ed.

Ultimately, in the case where a woman wants the baby and the dude doesn't, he has a choice to make in response to hers. baby making can be thought of in terms of game theory. If one decides to pull down his or her proverbial pants (in the form of seeking consensual sex) and the other can agree or disagree by pulling down his or her proverbial pants. If pregnancy occurs, the female has a move to make and she might or might not decide to include the guy's answer in turn. If she doesn't and her decision is the opposite of what his would be, the ball is then in his court. He can risk deserting everything he knows and loves and maybe get caught, having to pay for the consequences or he can stay and definitely face the consequences.

Why do you think there is that stereotype about deadbeat dads? I'm guessing it has something to do with this very predicament.

originally posted by: Gryphon66


Because, obviously, the right to privacy is only important when certain parties want it to be. Women don't have a right to privacy regarding their own healthcare and their own bodies, because that is supposedly trumped by the superstitions of a legal fiction. Right?

/sarcasm off

The "right to privacy" does not trump the right of someone to know what they are paying for, and where their money goes. One gives up their right to privacy in any particular matter when they ask someone else to pay their way in that matter. If you think not, then I need 1500 dollars. You don't need to know what for. Just mail it to me. A check will be fine - I'll figure out a way to cash it when it gets here, since I don't deal with banks... all you need to worry about is sending it.

I'll be waiting for the money. Hurry up, I don't have all month to get it!

a reply to: olaru12

The flood gates have now been opened for any company claiming "religious reason" to discriminate againt women, gays and anyone else that doesn't meet their religious standards.

No, it does not.

Read the decision. This only affects companies that claim this specific objection, against paying for birth control on religious grounds, and only allows for said companies to opt-out of the ACA birth control mandated coverage. It simply says that religious for profit businesses enjoy the same provisions that the ACA has in place for religious non-profits.

It has nothing to do with discrimination against women, gays or anyone else.

Take your fear mongering somewhere else. ATS is a place to deny ignorance, not embrace it.

a reply to: nenothtu

Are you employed by Gryphon? If you are, and he gives you $1500 as compensation, can he tell you what you can do with that money? Is he entitled to know what you're spending that money on?

A salaried employee usually gets so many paid vacation days. Does the employer have the right to tell this employee where he can and can't go on vacation? If the employer's religion is against gambling, can the employer tell the employee that he is not allowed to go to Vegas and gamble on his vacation? Should the employer be able to withdraw payment for said vacation because he doesn't like where the employee is going?

The way I look at it, health insurance is part of the compensation package in return for working for the employer, just like salary. You shouldn't even be entitled to know what that compensation is going to be used on. A person works for you, and in return you give them a paycheck, paid vacation days, and health insurance. What they do with those things is not your business. Especially when the employee is paying for part of that insurance out of their own paycheck.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: KnowledgeSeeker81

are you married??
so if your spouse had lost the coverage to their birth control pill and really didn't want more babies to the point where they were willing to give up on sex
you would be alright with that???

If sex with her wasn't worth the extra five bucks or so a week that I'd have to shell out of my wallet to get her to open her "wallet", if it was really that dismal, then I submit that whether or not her employer is willing to pay for me to play may be the least of my marital problems...

originally posted by: windword

What part of refusing to provide certain methods of contraception don't you understand? No these women can't go to their doctor's who are paid by Hobby Lobby insurance and get something that's not covered.

Their doctors refuse cash money? Perhaps they should consider switching doctors.

Do you deny that Hobby Lobby employees are being denied this option? Do you somehow believe that their employee lost the right to access those methods because of Hobby Lobby's beliefs? You would be wrong. But right now, there is no pathway available for those women, due to the ACA/HHS regs.

Their doctors refuse cash money? Perhaps they should consider switching doctors.

Insults and accusations are not a winning strategy. As I said earlier, birth control doesn't come in flavors, like ice cream. There are some women who can only use the methods that HL has denied. My daughter is one of those women, so I speak from experience. These women do not currently have access to those methods.

Her doctor refuses cash money? Perhaps she should consider switching doctors. I'm afraid I have to ask this question, so I'll be as delicate as I can, but if your daughter is allergic to EVERYTHING, including hormones, copper, plastic, latex, lamb skin, et al, how does she ever leave her house?

originally posted by: jimmyx

so you would favor men paying for their own Viagra and vasectomies rather than the health insurance company at hobby lobby, right?

Yes.

It's their play, and THEY should pay for it.

I'm a firm believer in people standing on their own hind legs.

If Hobby Lobby or anyone else WANTS to pay for it, however, then I haven't got a problem with that, as they are exercising their own rights to do with their own money as they see fit. That would be between themselves and their employees.

a reply to: nenothtu

So you'd rather just remove the whole thing across the board and for everyone it's a "Pay to Play" type thing right???

If so then you should not be supporting this outcome as it is. Because this is not "Across the Board". This is Selective and for Fictional Persons only. Not for real people, yourself included. You realize that since Corps. Don't have to pay now that the Gov. makes up for it. Meaning that since Government money is our Tax dollars, the people now have to pay more while the Corps pay less.

originally posted by: jrod

Do you really believe abstinence works?

Do you expect any reasonable person believes in it?

I do.

During those times I was abstinent, I impregnated NO women. Problem solved.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: jrod

Do you really believe abstinence works?

Do you expect any reasonable person believes in it?

I do.

During those times I was abstinent, I impregnated NO women. Problem solved.

Ok, no offense here, but how much of that was your choice and how much was their choice??? (You don't have to answer that BTW.)

Double Double

a reply to: nenothtu

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

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: nenothtu

So you'd rather just remove the whole thing across the board and for everyone it's a "Pay to Play" type thing right???

Yes. I'd rather see the entirety of the ACA (and indeed ALL of the "insurance" ponzi schemes) relegated to the dustbin of history, under the label of "things that don't work" and "useless governmental intrusion into my own life and decision making process".

If so then you should not be supporting this outcome as it is. Because this is not "Across the Board". This is Selective and for Fictional Persons only. Not for real people, yourself included. You realize that since Corps. Don't have to pay now that the Gov. makes up for it. Meaning that since Government money is our Tax dollars, the people now have to pay more while the Corps pay less.

It's at least a start to across the board disassembly.

I can guarantee that my taxes won't rise over it, although yours may if you don't do what's necessary to fight it. The government has not yet "forced" me to buy anything - they've only written a law attempting to force me. That's just not gonna work out well, because I am entirely prepared to go balls-to-the-wall to stop it from being effective in my world - and I'm not responsible for yours.

I may get to the rest of the replies to me later - I'm still back on page 57, scrambling to try catching up.