If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic Wire)   Conservative business owners win appeal in DC Circuit Court challenging the Obamacare contraceptive mandate   (theatlanticwire.com) divider line 393
    More: Scary, D.C. Circuit, obamacare, individual mandate, contraceptive mandate, Law and Justice, Catholic Faith, birth control, contraceptives  
•       •       •

5049 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Nov 2013 at 4:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



393 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-01 05:16:05 PM  
Conservative Stingy and hateful business owners win appeal in DC Circuit Court challenging the Obamacare contraceptive mandate

Now it's more accurate.
 <a rel="nofollow" class="outbound_link" target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.fark.com="" goto="" 8000649="" www.theatlanticwire.com="" politics="" 2013="" 11="" anti-birth-control-employer-just-beat-obamacare-court="" 71176="" "="">
 
2013-11-01 05:16:51 PM  
And I have no idea what that shiat is under my comment.
 
2013-11-01 05:19:31 PM  
Im not a lawyer, but isn't there a lot of precedent that goes against this?

Im thinking of 2 cases, the Rastafarians who wanted to smoke pot (no) and the Amish who wanted to not have reflectors on their buggies (amish lost)
 
2013-11-01 05:19:42 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: And I have no idea what that shiat is under my comment.


Secret NSA code.  Now they are going to come for you!
 
2013-11-01 05:20:17 PM  
My favorite thing about this is if it passes then companies can just declare a Pentecostalism based healthcare system.  Faith Healing for everyone!
 
2013-11-01 05:20:30 PM  

theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.


It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?
 
2013-11-01 05:20:35 PM  
I lean to the left on a lot of things. But abortion... might as well say I am from Mississippi... Go judges!
 
2013-11-01 05:21:24 PM  
Sew the fish holes up!!!!

/save the whales!
 
2013-11-01 05:23:32 PM  

SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?


Not the sincerity of their beliefs. The notion that providing a healthcare plan that covers contraception is somehow a violation of those beliefs. The employer is still entirely free to not use contraception in accordance with their religious beliefs. There is literally nothing about Catholic dogma that suggests that providing a health care plan that covers contraception is sinful or even frowned upon.
 
2013-11-01 05:23:44 PM  

R.O.U.S: I can think of some other unfortunate consequences of such a precedent:

1: Equal opportunity employment is against my religion. I demand that I be allowed to discriminate against anyone of the wrong beliefs, or who my religion states is inferior.

2: The Fair Housing act is against my religion. I demand that I be allowed to keep the "wrong" people out of my neighborhood/HOA/apartments/town.

3: Disabled people offend my god, I demand that I be allowed to remove all wheelchair ramps, accessible doors, etc from my business.

Etc Etc...

In all seriousness, religious freedom and rights are all well and good, until they interfere with someone else's freedoms and rights. Freedom of religion should end where my rights begin.


There is a concept called "begging the question."  In all seriousness, you might want to familiarize yourself with it.

Separately, your "hypotheticals" have all been litigated, and the business owners lost.

Even more separately, this is maybe the millionth reason our employer-provided health care system is stupid.
 
2013-11-01 05:24:23 PM  

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Weaver95: This would be a very awkward and strange precedent to set. I hope it gets overturned by SCOTUS.

I'm a Jewish business owner and the Torah says slavery is a-okay, so why can't I go buy some people to work in my stores?

I'm a Christian Scientist business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for any drugs?

I'm a Jehovah's Witness business owner, so why can't I deny coverage for blood transfusions?

Seriously, this is a terrifying bit of precedent to set.


I'm Irish Catholic, and my religion specifically denies allowing birth control coverage. I also can't hire prosperity gospel heretics unless they agree to convert. I also get to charge other heretics extra and deny services to others. (depending on religion)

Just wait, it gets worse. As an extremely devout Catholic, I also don't believe in anything but faith healing. Therein, I can't be forced to give out any coverage because it would be denying my religious rights.
 
SH
2013-11-01 05:25:31 PM  
How is employer provided health insurance not a giant HIPAA violation? It gives the employer tons of otherwise private information to use to discriminate.
 
2013-11-01 05:25:51 PM  

theorellior: chapman: Which right or freedom was being impinged? The right to have someone else buy you stuff?

This is not about free shiat, this is about medical care and insurance. Unless you think that people getting chemo under their insurance are getting free shiat, then STFU.


This is about people getting their preferred method of birth control paid for by their employer through insurance.This is not about people getting chemo under their insurance, so please feel free to STFU yourself.
 
2013-11-01 05:27:06 PM  

SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?


Fark 'em!  If they don't like it then they need to get behind a national single payer system so that they no longer carry the burden.  But, of course, they wouldn't do that because soshulizum overwhelms their two braincells.
 
2013-11-01 05:28:01 PM  

iodine: Lots of erroneous arguments in this thread are whining about this well considered decision.  If Gilardi's doesn't want to fund insurance benefits for contraception or abortion and the courts agree with them, then folks can suck it (and make them pay the wage premium that would provide for personal funding of this very personal benefit). Plenty of employers legally offer no health benefits at all.

One might complain that neither position should be allowed, but even in the twilight of Obamacare, that argument is going nowhere quickly, at least as a practical matter of politics being "the art of the possible".

Let's try mandating that all employers need to pay for a firearm for any employee who wants one.  That might be a "life saving device".  No?  Then time to suck it and move along.


people can shoot the fertilized egg right out of them!
 
2013-11-01 05:28:40 PM  
My god tells me that all fat people are servants of Satan.  Is there an insurance plan that excludes coverage of Satan worshipers who show their love of Satan by having Type II Diabetes?
 
2013-11-01 05:29:14 PM  

SH: How is employer provided health insurance not a giant HIPAA violation? It gives the employer tons of otherwise private information to use to discriminate.


Huh? My employer pays for part of my blue cross insurance.

My boss cant look up my medical records.
 
2013-11-01 05:29:26 PM  
@theknuckler

You're making my point.  Diverse companies that DO provide coverage for medical/ dental/ vision benefits of various kinds also DO have a variety of strategies for what the employee might wind up paying in the form of deductibles and co-pays.  However imperfectly, several give the employee options as to whether they want HMO, PPO, etc.

The employee doesn't directly pay the premium unless one wants to assume that all profit results from the uncompensated labor or the employee.

As a practical matter, these sorts of policies do get the employee involved in the nits and nats, nuts and bolts, dollars and cents of their health care decisions.  Personally, I think the employee should be allowed to think and vote with his/her feet. 

If what the Gilardi's are offering to cover is unusually stingy, then I think they'll experience consequences from that, especially if other employers have a different view.
 
2013-11-01 05:29:40 PM  

Cupajo: drop: Find it hard to be outraged or find this 'scary' or a 'dangerous precedent'.

Chances are if you can't afford condoms, you can't afford STD treatments, an abortion, or childcare either.  No reason anyone else should have to pay for those things for you, just so you can get your rocks off.

I'll change my mind if I can get my motorcycle helmet (not a euphemism), brake pads, and other preventative safety equipment for my own recreational activities covered by medical insurance as well.

Birth control is not just about preventing pregnancy, you moron.  The pill can protect against cancer, help keep the skin clear, and ease the symptoms of PMS.


My ex used birth control because of poly-cystic ovarian syndrome or something like that.
 
2013-11-01 05:29:48 PM  

theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?

Not the sincerity of their beliefs. The notion that providing a healthcare plan that covers contraception is somehow a violation of those beliefs. The employer is still entirely free to not use contraception in accordance with their religious beliefs. There is literally nothing about Catholic dogma that suggests that providing a health care plan that covers contraception is sinful or even frowned upon.


I am not sure what constitutes "Catholic dogma" and I'll bet you are even less sure.  But in 2012, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had this to say about the mandate.

The Catholic bishops of the United States called "literally unconscionable" a decision by the Obama Administration to continue to demand that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans. Today's announcement means that this mandate and its very narrow exemption will not change at all; instead there will only be a delay in enforcement against some employers.
"In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences," said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.


http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-012.cfm
 
2013-11-01 05:30:17 PM  

SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?


No it doesn't. It only puts a substantial burden on their ability to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.
 
2013-11-01 05:30:21 PM  
So now days the government is forcing use to buy health insurance.  And as part of this, the insurance corporation is forced to provide me with contraceptives.  Did I miss something, I don't understand why this is considered a medical expenses?  Are they also going to buy my toothpaste?  How about my shampoo?
 
2013-11-01 05:30:27 PM  

drop: Find it hard to be outraged or find this 'scary' or a 'dangerous precedent'.

Chances are if you can't afford condoms, you can't afford STD treatments, an abortion, or childcare either.  No reason anyone else should have to pay for those things for you, just so you can get your rocks off.

I'll change my mind if I can get my motorcycle helmet (not a euphemism), brake pads, and other preventative safety equipment for my own recreational activities covered by medical insurance as well.


Time to change your mind then

My motorcycle policy allows for discounts for protective gear - and medical is part of that plan.

btw? try not to conflate why women shouldn't be "getting off" and motorcycles - it makes you sound squeeky.
 
2013-11-01 05:30:36 PM  

chapman: theorellior: chapman: Which right or freedom was being impinged? The right to have someone else buy you stuff?

This is not about free shiat, this is about medical care and insurance. Unless you think that people getting chemo under their insurance are getting free shiat, then STFU.

This is about people getting their preferred method of birth control paid for by their employer through insurance.This is not about people getting chemo under their insurance, so please feel free to STFU yourself.


I'll be nice here and simply mention that, for women, birth control has greater uses than just birth control.

/Overwhelming need to punch in face with snark subsiding.
 
2013-11-01 05:31:02 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Does that mean the owners become personally responsible?
If so, I will joyfully celebrate the end of corporate personhood.



I was wondering if Freshway was a corp. or not.  I found several references to Freshway Foods, Inc., so I assume the company's a corp.  Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, don't the company's officers get to determine what compensation gets offered?
 
2013-11-01 05:31:43 PM  

MonoChango: So now days the government is forcing use to buy health insurance.  And as part of this, the insurance corporation is forced to provide me with contraceptives.  Did I miss something, I don't understand why this is considered a medical expenses?  Are they also going to buy my toothpaste?  How about my shampoo?


Do you need a prescription for your shampoo and toothpaste?
 
2013-11-01 05:32:12 PM  

SH: How is employer provided health insurance not a giant HIPAA violation? It gives the employer tons of otherwise private information to use to discriminate.


HIPPA:
www.atomicnerds.com
 
2013-11-01 05:32:25 PM  

Rincewind53: Actually, several appeals circuits have already struck it down, and it's already on its way to the Supreme Court, where we will likely get a landmark decision saying that corporations have religious rights.

Or we'll get a decision like this one, which pretends that the owners of a corporation are the same as a corporation.


Wouldn't that be a logical extension of a corporation-friendly SCOTUS that's already decided that corporations have the right to freedom of expression?
 
2013-11-01 05:34:06 PM  

iodine: @theknuckler

You're making my point.  Diverse companies that DO provide coverage for medical/ dental/ vision benefits of various kinds also DO have a variety of strategies for what the employee might wind up paying in the form of deductibles and co-pays.  However imperfectly, several give the employee options as to whether they want HMO, PPO, etc.

The employee doesn't directly pay the premium unless one wants to assume that all profit results from the uncompensated labor or the employee.

As a practical matter, these sorts of policies do get the employee involved in the nits and nats, nuts and bolts, dollars and cents of their health care decisions.  Personally, I think the employee should be allowed to think and vote with his/her feet. 

If what the Gilardi's are offering to cover is unusually stingy, then I think they'll experience consequences from that, especially if other employers have a different view.


Yeah, and that might result in something if there's a union contract in play.  If not,  hahahaha....  Yeah, just find another job.  "Great idea!", said the person without a clue!
 
2013-11-01 05:34:18 PM  
D&Cs aren't just used for abortion. I have needed them for (looks around, sighs) 'lady issues' post miscarriage. I would have died without them.

Women with endometriosis and related issues need the Pill to manage the incredible pain and bleeding - so they can work, not be on welfare.

WTF is wrong with your country, Americans? You used to be the cool kid everyone admired in high school. Now you are creepy born again freaky weird at the reunion.

/ I know you aren't all that way, but it seems a majority must be when these decisions get made
// your decisions frankly scare the hell out of me
 
2013-11-01 05:34:56 PM  

vrax: I'll be nice here and simply mention that, for women, birth control has greater uses than just birth control.

/Overwhelming need to punch in face with snark subsiding.


I'll be nice and simply mention that birth control used for other medical reasons is typically covered.
 
2013-11-01 05:35:00 PM  

leevis: kronicfeld: But remember, it's gays and liberals who are demanding "special rights."

Actually, the "special rights" people are the ones who've been convinced that somehow it's the employer's responsibility to pay for birth control, and if you're opposed to that it means you hate women.


I'm sure somebody has already replied to this, but, do you realize that that insurance companies would rather pay for birth control than to have a baby? Want to know why? It's insanely expensive to have a baby! Your premiums will rise if this goes through
 
2013-11-01 05:35:41 PM  

DubyaHater: Nothing is 100% effective.....condoms, the Pill, IUD's. There is a risk someone using contraception could get pregnant and decide to abort the fetus. Why would the owner of a corporation who doesn't believe in abortion want to find someone's contraception? Having sex is a personal choice. You want to have sex, accept the consequences. Get your own contraception.
The owner of the company has a right to set the rules. You don't like it, start your own business and run it the way you want. Or better yet, buy your own insurance.
/my gf had a hysterectomy
//I'm good


That would sound much better if you included "corporate business owners who enjoy tax breaks, lowering their contribution to social service programs who provide assistance for unintended babies of workers who are underpaid and didn't want children for that very reason"
 
2013-11-01 05:36:01 PM  
Why can't adults make their own decisions?
 
2013-11-01 05:36:21 PM  
Cases like this are why the U.S. needs a Constitutional amendment stating that wholly legal persons are inherently inferior to natural persons and therefore, may not enjoy either Constitutional protections nor be granted a reasonable approximation of them by any statute, regulation or collection of same.
 
2013-11-01 05:36:26 PM  
theorellior: And yet there's still no outrage about boner pills, which are directly responsible for the deaths of untold billions of old guy sperm. Maybe not being able to get it up is a message from God?

The argument there is that boner pills treat a bodily malfunction and restore a normal bodily function. Birth control, especially hormonal birth control, interferes with a normal bodily function.

I'm not saying I agree, I'm just sharing their justification.
 
2013-11-01 05:37:28 PM  
If a corporation claims personhood, then it should have no trouble substantiating this claim by demonstrating it can perform some act that the average person is capable of doing. I call this the twerk test. Go on, shake that tax-exempt money maker like the naughty corporealation you supposedly are.
 
2013-11-01 05:37:32 PM  

iodine: @theknuckler

You're making my point.  Diverse companies that DO provide coverage for medical/ dental/ vision benefits of various kinds also DO have a variety of strategies for what the employee might wind up paying in the form of deductibles and co-pays.  However imperfectly, several give the employee options as to whether they want HMO, PPO, etc.

The employee doesn't directly pay the premium unless one wants to assume that all profit results from the uncompensated labor or the employee.

As a practical matter, these sorts of policies do get the employee involved in the nits and nats, nuts and bolts, dollars and cents of their health care decisions.  Personally, I think the employee should be allowed to think and vote with his/her feet.

o.O

If what the Gilardi's are offering to cover is unusually stingy, then I think they'll experience consequences from that, especially if other employers have a different view.

Obviously, in your mind, we have a system where there are more jobs than people or an equal number of jobs and people, which means that the power in employer-employee relationship is at parity.
In reality, the power has been tipped more and more in favor of employers over the past nearly four decades.

This is not a seller's market for labor.
Asserting that it is, or that the relative power of employers and employees is at parity, is pants-on-fire on head potato.
 
2013-11-01 05:37:39 PM  

chapman: vrax: I'll be nice here and simply mention that, for women, birth control has greater uses than just birth control.

/Overwhelming need to punch in face with snark subsiding.

I'll be nice and simply mention that birth control used for other medical reasons is typically covered.


Well, great!  See, that wasn't such a big deal.  Oh, wait, now they are actually playing doctor and telling you how you can be treated with a medication.  That is exactly where we don't want any business, TYVM!
 
2013-11-01 05:39:43 PM  

keypusher: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?

Not the sincerity of their beliefs. The notion that providing a healthcare plan that covers contraception is somehow a violation of those beliefs. The employer is still entirely free to not use contraception in accordance with their religious beliefs. There is literally nothing about Catholic dogma that suggests that providing a health care plan that covers contraception is sinful or even frowned upon.

I am not sure what constitutes "Catholic dogma" and I'll bet you are even less sure.  But in 2012, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had this to say about the mandate.

The Catholic bishops of the United States called "literally unconscionable" a decision by the Obama Administration to continue to demand that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans. Today's announcement means that this mandate and its very narrow exemption will not change at all; instead there will only be a delay in enforcement against some employers.
"In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences," said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-012.cfm


Rhen get out of the money making business. Problem solved
 
2013-11-01 05:40:22 PM  

acohn: demaL-demaL-yeH: Does that mean the owners become personally responsible?
If so, I will joyfully celebrate the end of corporate personhood.


I was wondering if Freshway was a corp. or not.  I found several references to Freshway Foods, Inc., so I assume the company's a corp.  Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, don't the company's officers get to determine what compensation gets offered?


Let's see how far you can fly setting wages below minimum.
 
2013-11-01 05:40:33 PM  

acohn: demaL-demaL-yeH: Does that mean the owners become personally responsible?
If so, I will joyfully celebrate the end of corporate personhood.


I was wondering if Freshway was a corp. or not.  I found several references to Freshway Foods, Inc., so I assume the company's a corp.  Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, don't the company's officers get to determine what compensation gets offered?


Like minimum wage?
 
2013-11-01 05:42:05 PM  

ginandbacon: acohn: demaL-demaL-yeH: Does that mean the owners become personally responsible?
If so, I will joyfully celebrate the end of corporate personhood.


I was wondering if Freshway was a corp. or not.  I found several references to Freshway Foods, Inc., so I assume the company's a corp.  Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, don't the company's officers get to determine what compensation gets offered?

Like minimum wage?


I lurv you almost as much as another farkette lurvs treif, you brilliant person.
 
2013-11-01 05:42:20 PM  

vrax: chapman: vrax: I'll be nice here and simply mention that, for women, birth control has greater uses than just birth control.

/Overwhelming need to punch in face with snark subsiding.

I'll be nice and simply mention that birth control used for other medical reasons is typically covered.

Well, great!  See, that wasn't such a big deal.  Oh, wait, now they are actually playing doctor and telling you how you can be treated with a medication.  That is exactly where we don't want any business, TYVM!


That's exactly wrong.  If it is for a medical purpose for issues other than just birth control, the business would have no say.
 
2013-11-01 05:43:23 PM  

Phins: The argument there is that boner pills treat a bodily malfunction and restore a normal bodily function.


It's obviously God's will that your dick failed.  We should cover things that go against God's will!
 
2013-11-01 05:43:45 PM  

keypusher: R.O.U.S: I can think of some other unfortunate consequences of such a precedent:

1: Equal opportunity employment is against my religion. I demand that I be allowed to discriminate against anyone of the wrong beliefs, or who my religion states is inferior.

2: The Fair Housing act is against my religion. I demand that I be allowed to keep the "wrong" people out of my neighborhood/HOA/apartments/town.

3: Disabled people offend my god, I demand that I be allowed to remove all wheelchair ramps, accessible doors, etc from my business.

Etc Etc...

In all seriousness, religious freedom and rights are all well and good, until they interfere with someone else's freedoms and rights. Freedom of religion should end where my rights begin.

There is a concept called "begging the question."  In all seriousness, you might want to familiarize yourself with it.

Separately, your "hypotheticals" have all been litigated, and the business owners lost.

Even more separately, this is maybe the millionth reason our employer-provided health care system is stupid.


This is why it would be best if they just did away with all the stupid rules on health care companies.   Let them compete across state lines like every other company and level the playing field by making an individuals health care coverage expenses tax deductible.  That way I can insure myself and family at terms that make sense for me without stepping on other people's religious freedom, or have my company, or government force me to buy something I don't want... you know some sort of free enterprise type thing.   I'm just getting tired of all this farking socialism.  It doesn't work theoretically, hasn't ever worked when it's been tried in reality, and never will work for a free people.  The most basic bottom line is that once you do anything as a collective you give up your personal freedom.  We have decided that we will collectively provide healthcare.  Guess what, that means we have lost our personal freedom when it comes to healthcare, only the collective matters.  Now your only option is to pray that your political enemies don't take control of it.
 
2013-11-01 05:44:38 PM  

Rincewind53: It is indeed. If the Court upholds  Hobby Lobby, it will lead to a whole realm of new legal challenges by corporations. I'm not looking forward to it.


Isn't Hobby Lobby a closely-held stock corporation, as opposed to a publicly-held corporation?  Would a SCOTUS decision upholding Hobby Lobby's position also apply to a publicly-held corporation?
 
2013-11-01 05:44:52 PM  

acohn: Cases like this are why the U.S. needs a Constitutional amendment stating that wholly legal persons are inherently inferior to natural persons and therefore, may not enjoy either Constitutional protections nor be granted a reasonable approximation of them by any statute, regulation or collection of same.


I agree, but as long as money is speech and the political winners are the ones who collect the most of it, it will never change.
 
2013-11-01 05:45:00 PM  

keypusher: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: theknuckler_33: SkinnyHead: A very well reasoned opinion.  I look forward to seeing Janice Rogers Brown on the US Supreme Court.

Except that providing coverage for contraception doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom.

It puts a substantial burden on their religious beliefs.  You're not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs, are you?

Not the sincerity of their beliefs. The notion that providing a healthcare plan that covers contraception is somehow a violation of those beliefs. The employer is still entirely free to not use contraception in accordance with their religious beliefs. There is literally nothing about Catholic dogma that suggests that providing a health care plan that covers contraception is sinful or even frowned upon.

I am not sure what constitutes "Catholic dogma" and I'll bet you are even less sure.  But in 2012, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had this to say about the mandate.

The Catholic bishops of the United States called "literally unconscionable" a decision by the Obama Administration to continue to demand that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans. Today's announcement means that this mandate and its very narrow exemption will not change at all; instead there will only be a delay in enforcement against some employers.
"In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences," said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-012.cfm


The problem with this is the Catholic Bishops can afford to take this stance - they are celibate men (no pedo jokes, 'k?)
There are PLENTY of Catholic families that practice family planning - they are as removed from reality as certain "but I have a nice house" congressmen.
 
2013-11-01 05:45:01 PM  

chapman: vrax: chapman: vrax: I'll be nice here and simply mention that, for women, birth control has greater uses than just birth control.

/Overwhelming need to punch in face with snark subsiding.

I'll be nice and simply mention that birth control used for other medical reasons is typically covered.

Well, great!  See, that wasn't such a big deal.  Oh, wait, now they are actually playing doctor and telling you how you can be treated with a medication.  That is exactly where we don't want any business, TYVM!

That's exactly wrong.  If it is for a medical purpose for issues other than just birth control, the business would have no say.


Birth control is a prescribed medical treatment.  Business can fark itself!
 
Displayed 50 of 393 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report