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  
•       •       •

5035 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Nov 2013 at 4:37 PM (47 weeks 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 05:47:01 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: 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.


LOL right back atcha lovey!!!!
 
2013-11-01 05:48:26 PM

acohn: 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?


It's a good question, and I have  no idea what the answer is.
 
2013-11-01 05:49:00 PM
Buy your own damn rubbers, you dirty hippies
 
2013-11-01 05:49:16 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


I grew up Catholic and went to 12 years of Catholic school. I even have a nun in my family.  I know it pretty well. Interesting that the Conference of Catholic Bishops didn't cite anything in the bible or catechism or papal writings or anything to explain why such coverage 'violates their conscious', don't you think?
 
2013-11-01 05:49:46 PM
The RIchest Man in Babylon: How can you justify being so anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive?

I know someone who opposed to both. Here's her "logic."

Sex with birth control puts a barrier between you and your partner and you can't give yourself fully if there's something between you. This type of sex, with a barrier, is bad for you. Also, any sexual activity that is not the type that could lead to pregnancy (P in V) is bad for you. She knows this is true for everyone on the planet. Use Natural Family Planning only and accept the possibility of pregnancy or don't have sex.

She also believes that hormonal BC and IUDs cause abortion because it might prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. The fact that the medical definition of pregnancy is that it occurs on implantation is irrelevant because it's wrong. The considerable medical evidence that hormonal BC does NOT prevent implantation is not good enough. There would have to absolute proof that no fertilized egg could ever not implant and, needless to say, there is no evidence/proof that would satisfy her.

She will also say that "people need to control themselves" which leads to the real objection: people are having sex just for fun without the threat of pregnancy. According to her, people who are not willing to have a child if pregnancy occurs shouldn't have sex. Everyone should just be abstinent until marriage and then use NFP.

She doesn't care that this is wildly unrealistic and has never worked in the entire history of humankind. That's the standard and we shouldn't lower the standard, people should live up to the standard. This is what's best for you.
 
2013-11-01 05:49:46 PM
Time to get a new job.
 
2013-11-01 05:50:10 PM

Phins: 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.


yes, ok
an erection is a bodily function to what purpose? i mean, we've all seen the ads - it isn't to make your pants fit better or to pee with greater flow.
Hormonal birth control has more medical necessity than an erection - unless having one helps regulate the prostate or something.
The Pill does not interfere with a normal body function - women still ovulate and menstruate - the only thinking behind that is that pregnancy is a normal body function and for many women, it isn't and never will be.
 
2013-11-01 05:52:22 PM

Phins: The RIchest Man in Babylon: How can you justify being so anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive?

I know someone who opposed to both. Here's her "logic."

Sex with birth control puts a barrier between you and your partner and you can't give yourself fully if there's something between you. This type of sex, with a barrier, is bad for you. Also, any sexual activity that is not the type that could lead to pregnancy (P in V) is bad for you. She knows this is true for everyone on the planet. Use Natural Family Planning only and accept the possibility of pregnancy or don't have sex.

She also believes that hormonal BC and IUDs cause abortion because it might prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. The fact that the medical definition of pregnancy is that it occurs on implantation is irrelevant because it's wrong. The considerable medical evidence that hormonal BC does NOT prevent implantation is not good enough. There would have to absolute proof that no fertilized egg could ever not implant and, needless to say, there is no evidence/proof that would satisfy her.

She will also say that "people need to control themselves" which leads to the real objection: people are having sex just for fun without the threat of pregnancy. According to her, people who are not willing to have a child if pregnancy occurs shouldn't have sex. Everyone should just be abstinent until marriage and then use NFP.

She doesn't care that this is wildly unrealistic and has never worked in the entire history of humankind. That's the standard and we shouldn't lower the standard, people should live up to the standard. This is what's best for you.


Make sure to label her somehow so that the public will know to avoid at all costs.
 
2013-11-01 05:52:50 PM

ginandbacon: demaL-demaL-yeH: 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.

LOL right back atcha lovey!!!!


Only eleven seconds from a simultaneous Nixon,YouDolt!-gasm.
/This really doesn't happen to me: My comments are usually minutes late(r).
 
2013-11-01 05:53:02 PM

capn' fun: So...  Now, if I worked for a "conservative" employer, that employer gets to decide whether/when my wife or daughter should/should not get pregnant?  Because Jesus?


No, you and your wife and your daughter and her SO get to decide that by whatever legal means available.  That's a separate issue of whether an employer, particularly a non-publicly-held stock corporation, must pay for those means.
 
2013-11-01 05:53:11 PM
Also, the Atlantic article is misleading.

The majority specifically declined to hold that a corporation possessed the right to free exercise of its religious belief.  See p. 15.  So this has nothing to do with the "corporations aren't people" argument.

The article did at least contain a link to the opinion, which should be mandatory in news articles discussing judicial opinions.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/947B9C4D8A1E54E78 52 57C16004E80C9/%24file/13-5069-1464136.pdf
 
2013-11-01 05:54:01 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.


Birth control: Does it require a doctor's approval? Does it impact a woman's health and well-being? Is pregnancy a medical condition that carries risks and should be assumed with care? Why, yes, to all of the above, so kindly fark yourself with a cactus if you think that contraception is basically a hedonistic luxury that only sluts would want to obtain for free. If someone pays for health insurance through their labor, as part of their compensation from their employer, then all health procedures should be covered. Including birth control and boner pills.
 
2013-11-01 05:54:15 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: ginandbacon: demaL-demaL-yeH: 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.

LOL right back atcha lovey!!!!

Only eleven seconds from a simultaneous Nixon,YouDolt!-gasm.
/This really doesn't happen to me: My comments are usually minutes late(r).


I saw that. Next time we are SO simulposting!
 
2013-11-01 05:55:08 PM

timelady: 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


Too many people  who put themselves ad religion ahead of doing the right thing.
 
2013-11-01 05:55:09 PM

shaddix: I lean to the left on a lot of things. But abortion... might as well say I am from Mississippi... Go judges!


I lean to the right on most things. But I think abortions, contraceptives, vasectomies, hysterectomies etc. should all be covered with tax dollars.
 
2013-11-01 05:55:51 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.


Well, these employers think it is sinful and frowned upon.  It they sincerely believe that providing contraception is a violation of their Catholic faith, that's their religious belief, and sincere beliefs cannot be substantially burdened without a compelling government interest.
 
2013-11-01 05:56:01 PM
This means that Jehovah's Witness owned business can exclude coverage of blood transfusions and organ transplants.

Real smart jurisprudence there, Lou.
 
2013-11-01 05:56:34 PM

pacified: Time to get a new job.


and they insist the reason why women are underpaid is because they are more prone to leave employment....lol
 
2013-11-01 05:59:15 PM

BigGrnEggGriller: Buy your own damn rubbers, you dirty hippies


What?!  It's an over the counter solution.  Unless your doctor applies them, insurance doesn't pay for your Band-Aids either.
 
2013-11-01 06:00:12 PM

SkinnyHead: 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.

Well, these employers think it is sinful and frowned upon.  It they sincerely believe that providing contraception is a violation of their Catholic faith, that's their religious belief, and sincere beliefs cannot be substantially burdened without a compelling government interest.


except they don't -
go ahead and look at how many of them have more than a handful of children.
my granparents' parents were practicing catholics - they had (two couples) 23 children collectively.

they may frown on their employees sin of birth control but i'd bet the farm they either practice it themselves or are jealous they aren't getting laid enough to populate a classroom going w//o protection.
 
2013-11-01 06:00:18 PM
I suggested employers do experience the consequences of their compensation and benefits decisions.  I think this goes beyond reproductive healthcare but that's just me and beyond the scope of this thread.

In response to certain counterarguments:

a) Yes, I agree that collective bargaining (unions by another name) makes this reckoning often but not always happen more quickly.  In the case of contraceptive or abortion benefits, this is probably more strongly the case since one, perhaps unintentional, result of Gilardi's approach is an all male workforce; women much more quickly and directly bear the impact of the denial of reproductive services benefits.

b) Yes, I agree that cyclical factors also play a role in terms of when an employer's behavior becomes consequential.  I made no claim about whether there are more workers than jobs or etc.

Regardless of the truth of (a) and (b), I don't think that takes away from the truths that an employer is entitled to a great degree of latitude (within existing law) about what benefits are provided and how they are allotted; and, that the process of determining all forms of compensation are improved when labor (in all its organized or unorganized forms) is given a voice in the process.
 
2013-11-01 06:00:49 PM
 
2013-11-01 06:00:55 PM

zedster: Weaver95: Corporate religions is a very very strange concept.

That would be as odd as the Church selling indulgences... ....


Older even.  Selling sacrificial offerings at the temple, etc.  Jesus was pissed yo.
 
2013-11-01 06:01:22 PM

kbronsito: So how many businesses and companies are owned by Muslims in America and can they all now impose Sharia law on their employees?


I bet that's in the back of every SCOTUS justice's mind, too.
 
2013-11-01 06:03:17 PM

SkinnyHead: 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.

Well, these employers think it is sinful and frowned upon.  It they sincerely believe that providing contraception is a violation of their Catholic faith, that's their religious belief, and sincere beliefs cannot be substantially burdened without a compelling government interest.


Then they should be told to get out of business and pursue and strictly religious calling.
 
2013-11-01 06:05:45 PM

vernonFL: 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?


One can live without contraceptives.  It is a choice to take it or not.  All a doctors prescription says is that it can screw up your body if taken wrong.  However, the fact remands that I've never taken estrogen, why should I pay for yours?  It wouldn't improve your personal health, nor does it improve our collective society (other than cutting your contribution to the gene pool).  If it doesn't help our collective society why should it be a collective mandate?
 
2013-11-01 06:05:49 PM
fc02.deviantart.net

As many as ONE IN TEN WOMEN have polycystic ovary syndrome, and one common treatment for it is hormone therapy by birth control! PCOS is connected to cancer and type two diabetes.

Sometimes, it's not about having sex. SOMETIMES, it's about just trying to be healthy and survive, for god's sake!
 
2013-11-01 06:06:21 PM

SkinnyHead: Well, these employers think it is sinful and frowned upon. It they sincerely believe that providing contraception is a violation of their Catholic faith, that's their religious belief, and sincere beliefs cannot be substantially burdened without a compelling government interest.


Thankfully, it's not the employers who are providing the access to contraception, but a health plan from a third party bought and paid for by a legally fictional entity distinct from the person of the owner(s).

A fictional entity that cannot, I might add, hold any sort of beliefs whatsoever.
 
2013-11-01 06:06:31 PM
It's not scary, it's common sense,

obama and the rest need to stay the fark out of everyones business...
or, they soon be regulating and taxing how much toilet paper use per dump.

we won't have a square to spare
 
2013-11-01 06:07:43 PM

umad: shaddix: I lean to the left on a lot of things. But abortion... might as well say I am from Mississippi... Go judges!

I lean to the right on most things. But I think abortions, contraceptives, vasectomies, hysterectomies etc. should all be covered with tax dollars.


Why?
 
2013-11-01 06:07:49 PM

iodine: result of Gilardi's approach is an all male workforce;


Then they will experience a new "hand of God" when the government is in up to their colons with a fine tooth comb over those hiring practices.
 
2013-11-01 06:08:02 PM

keypusher: "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.


Aren't there already federal statutes that grant exemptions to groups run by religious organizations for laws and regulations that run counter to their religious teachings?  I know there are on the state level, but obviously, that doesn't apply in this matter.
 
2013-11-01 06:08:04 PM

MonoChango: vernonFL: 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?

One can live without contraceptives.  It is a choice to take it or not.  All a doctors prescription says is that it can screw up your body if taken wrong.  However, the fact remands that I've never taken estrogen, why should I pay for yours?  It wouldn't improve your personal health, nor does it improve our collective society (other than cutting your contribution to the gene pool).  If it doesn't help our collective society why should it be a collective mandate?


Because easier access to contraception correlates with lower overall expenditures by society. Bang-for-buck-wise the contraceptive mandate is actually one of the biggest ways the ACA is going to save the country money. It's not the prettiest provision from a theoretical perspective, but it's spot on from a practical one.
 
2013-11-01 06:09:50 PM

MonoChango: umad: shaddix: I lean to the left on a lot of things. But abortion... might as well say I am from Mississippi... Go judges!

I lean to the right on most things. But I think abortions, contraceptives, vasectomies, hysterectomies etc. should all be covered with tax dollars.

Why?


Because it would save us a shiatload of money and drastically lower crime.
 
2013-11-01 06:10:19 PM

MonoChango: vernonFL: 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?

One can live without contraceptives.  It is a choice to take it or not.  All a doctors prescription says is that it can screw up your body if taken wrong.  However, the fact remands that I've never taken estrogen, why should I pay for yours?  It wouldn't improve your personal health, nor does it improve our collective society (other than cutting your contribution to the gene pool).  If it doesn't help our collective society why should it be a collective mandate?


Go sit in the corner until you understand something, anything, about the practice of medicine and its personal and societal impacts.
 
2013-11-01 06:13:14 PM

MonoChango: vernonFL: 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?

One can live without contraceptives.  It is a choice to take it or not.  All a doctors prescription says is that it can screw up your body if taken wrong.  However, the fact remands that I've never taken estrogen, why should I pay for yours?  It wouldn't improve your personal health, nor does it improve our collective society (other than cutting your contribution to the gene pool).  If it doesn't help our collective society why should it be a collective mandate?


One can also live without medical care of any kind - and many thousands do, daily.
The prescription doesn't say that, actually. The insert does - it outlines all the potential complications (which include death).
You know what else screws up a woman's body? Pregnancy - potential complications also include death.
You pay for my estrogen and I will pay for your eventual diabetes/blood pressure/prostate/cancer/steroid therapy meds
Hormonal therapy does, in fact, improve personal health - and it absolutely improves society - by every measure available.
 
2013-11-01 06:13:58 PM
Don't want to pay for women's contraceptives? Don't offer health insurance, give everyone a raise commensurate with what they wouldhave spent on health ins. And tell everyone to buy their own damn plans.

Problem solved.
 
2013-11-01 06:14:30 PM
chapman: Which right or freedom was being impinged? The right to have someone else buy you stuff?

Does the fact that birth control is cheaper than pregnancy change your mind? Or the fact that you pay for childbirth and child care for poor people in the form of higher premiums (to make up for the people who can't pay), food stamps, WIC, welfare, etc.? When Texas cut $73 million from state family planning services, the increase in unplanned pregnancies ended up costing $230 million in additional Medicaid burdens.

A model developed by Global Health Outcomes that incorporates costs of contraception, costs of unintended pregnancy, and indirect costs found that covering contraception saves employers $97 per year per employee.

From the HHS report on The Cost of Covering Contraceptives through Health Insurance:  "Unintended pregnancy and childbearing depress levels of educational attainment and labor force participation among mothers and lead to higher crime rates and poorer academic, economic, and health outcomes among children,"

Lord Dimwit: I will say, I'm vaguely irritated that the ACA mandates coverage for birth control.

Why?

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?

Because it's basic health care, provided by a doctor, by prescription. Are you aware that the pill treats a wide-range of medical conditions in addition to preventing pregnancy? Are you aware that pregnancy can be medically dangerous, even life-threatening, for some women?
 
2013-11-01 06:14:53 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?


My question needs refinement: Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, do the company's officers get to determine what types of compensation gets offered?
 
2013-11-01 06:15:53 PM

MonoChango: vernonFL: 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?

One can live without contraceptives.  It is a choice to take it or not.  All a doctors prescription says is that it can screw up your body if taken wrong.  However, the fact remands that I've never taken estrogen, why should I pay for yours?  It wouldn't improve your personal health, nor does it improve our collective society (other than cutting your contribution to the gene pool).  If it doesn't help our collective society why should it be a collective mandate?


Also, the health plans cover boner pills. You can live without those. It also covers vasectomies, another thing you can live without. In fact, it covers a whole bunch of things that you can live without, but which improve the quality of life for everyone in the country and reduce the costs of and burdens on the health care system in the long run.
 
2013-11-01 06:16:35 PM

SkinnyHead: 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.

Well, these employers think it is sinful and frowned upon.  It they sincerely believe that providing contraception is a violation of their Catholic faith, that's their religious belief, and sincere beliefs cannot be substantially burdened without a compelling government interest.


Yea, sorry. It doesn't work that way. You can't just make up your beliefs as you go along and then expect the laws of the land to bend to your whims.
 
2013-11-01 06:16:37 PM

timelady: 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


Money took over our politics, turned the middle class against the poor, and they're laughing all the way to the bank.
 
2013-11-01 06:16:56 PM

acohn: 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?

My question needs refinement: Since a corp.'s a distinct legal person, and insurance is part of an employee's compensation, do the company's officers get to determine what types of compensation gets offered?


No.
 
2013-11-01 06:20:19 PM
Thinking it through a little further, and I'm glad for the dialogue that educates me, I think employer provided health benefits, as designed now, do discriminate against women because women will more immediately and consequentially experience the consequences of the denial of reproductive health care services than their male colleagues and/or their employer.

I am still uneasy about the idea that the federal government is the proper agency to level the field.  I still do think the court reached the right decision in this particular case.

I apologize for suggesting that anyone should just suck it up.
 
2013-11-01 06:20:38 PM

acohn: 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?


Corporations still shield their owners from personal liability, public or private. If you're shielded from liability, your employees should be shielded from your capriciousness.
 
2013-11-01 06:21:31 PM

Kit Fister: Don't want to pay for women's contraceptives? Don't offer health insurance, give everyone a raise commensurate with what they wouldhave spent on health ins. And tell everyone to buy their own damn plans.

Problem solved.


They'll probably still claim that "their money" is going towards birth control and abortions.
 
2013-11-01 06:21:59 PM

Nadie_AZ: I should incorporate myself, take out massive loans, declare bankruptcy and walk away from myself to a resort in the Bahamas.


So long as you drive there in a biatchin' Camaro, it's all good.
 
2013-11-01 06:22:35 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?


Have you ever purchased prescription toohpaste? I have. My insurance had a co-pay amount for that toothpaste...Next dumb example of how you have no concept of the realities being discussed.
 
2013-11-01 06:24:23 PM

James!: I can foresee a lot of unintended consequences for this kind of thing.

"Sorry, Jeanine, you'll have to go over to the woman's satellite office while you're on your menses.  Company policy."


What do you mean UNintended consequences?
 
2013-11-01 06:25:11 PM

SkinnyHead: Well, these employers think it is sinful and frowned upon.  It they sincerely believe that providing contraception is a violation of their Catholic faith, that's their religious belief, and sincere beliefs cannot be substantially burdened without a compelling government interest.


Well, and here's a problem, there's no substantial burden involved in providing free contraception. Not to mention the fact that corporations cannot be religious.
 
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 »






Report