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.

(Salon)   The women on the US Supreme Court give Hobby Lobby a three way pounding. Now you're thinking about Ginsburg in a sexual way   (salon.com) divider line 251
    More: Cool, Hobby Lobby, Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, emergency contraception, Paul Clement, Supreme Court  
•       •       •

11452 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2014 at 10:31 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



251 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-25 06:40:13 PM
Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to believe this is a case about abortion.

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-03-25 06:41:46 PM
Wait, was I not supposed to before?


/Ohh yea, you're my baby, Ruth
 
2014-03-25 06:49:38 PM

scottydoesntknow: Wait, was I not supposed to before?


/Ohh yea, you're my baby, Ruth


I prefer Justice Sotomayor, myself.
 
2014-03-25 06:54:46 PM

DamnYankees: Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to believe this is a case about abortion.


Oy. That makes it 5-4.
 
2014-03-25 07:09:45 PM
Sweet. Can't wait to found my Sharia-based law firm.
 
2014-03-25 07:32:05 PM

Theaetetus: DamnYankees: Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to believe this is a case about abortion.

Oy. That makes it 5-4.


Ayup. The old white guys will have their way, as usual.

Yes I said white guys. Scalia's puppet doesn't count.
 
2014-03-25 07:54:49 PM
Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2014-03-25 08:04:49 PM

DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?


Are you trying to suggest Scalia is capable of logical thought?
 
2014-03-25 08:15:01 PM

DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?


The same reason he forgets about his hatred for Wickard v. Filburn when it comes to federal marijuana laws.
 
2014-03-25 08:19:04 PM

kronicfeld: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

The same reason he forgets about his hatred for Wickard v. Filburn when it comes to federal marijuana laws.


And the same reason he's able to say SCOTUS shouldn't interfere with laws passed by congress (DOMA) and then the next day interfere with a law passed by congress (Voting Rights Act).

I may have that sequence backwards, but you get the drift.
 
2014-03-25 08:20:35 PM

fusillade762: kronicfeld: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

The same reason he forgets about his hatred for Wickard v. Filburn when it comes to federal marijuana laws.

And the same reason he's able to say SCOTUS shouldn't interfere with laws passed by congress (DOMA) and then the next day interfere with a law passed by congress (Voting Rights Act).

I may have that sequence backwards, but you get the drift.


No you got that right.
 
2014-03-25 09:28:38 PM
The First Amendment doesn't only protect your religion from the government.  It also protects the government from your religion.
 
2014-03-25 09:36:55 PM

kronicfeld: Sweet. Can't wait to found my Sharia-based law firm.


I think I should finally start my pagan/wiccan business and only hire people from christian mingle to run my stores.
 
2014-03-25 10:33:01 PM
Oooooooooooooooooooo...
 
2014-03-25 10:35:35 PM
So tired of special rights for religion...
 
2014-03-25 10:36:58 PM
i141.photobucket.com

You know you want her to swing your gavel.
 
2014-03-25 10:41:04 PM

DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?


A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
 
2014-03-25 10:42:15 PM
Roberts court = worst in history.
 
2014-03-25 10:43:24 PM

Weaver95: kronicfeld: Sweet. Can't wait to found my Sharia-based law firm.

I think I should finally start my pagan/wiccan business and only hire people from christian mingle to run my stores.


Hell, I'm going to start my atheist grocery and you won't even get health insurance if you're religious. Let your god and/or gods handle your health. I've got a bottom line to deal with.
 
2014-03-25 10:43:34 PM
Well that article wasn't slant much Left............NOT!
 
2014-03-25 10:46:05 PM
You're not a church, you're a business, shut the fark up about your religion, treat your employees fairly, and get back to work.
 
2014-03-25 10:46:21 PM

Weaver95: kronicfeld: Sweet. Can't wait to found my Sharia-based law firm.

I think I should finally start my pagan/wiccan business and only hire people from christian mingle to run my stores.


I'm thinking it's time to see what religions could have the most outrageous exemptions, and start a business just to have fun with 'family values' employees.
 
2014-03-25 10:46:40 PM
I love how the writer knows what Scalia is thinking and tells everyone so they won't respect anything he says.
 
2014-03-25 10:46:53 PM
Baseball, cold showers. Margret Thatcher naked on a cold day.
 
2014-03-25 10:51:11 PM

DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?


Ostensibly, it's because Smith was decided pre-RFRA.  Of course, he'd still find a way to back Hobby Lobby here, because Scalia, but that's the reasoning at the moment.
 
2014-03-25 10:51:17 PM

FirstNationalBastard: scottydoesntknow: Wait, was I not supposed to before?


/Ohh yea, you're my baby, Ruth

I prefer Justice Sotomayor, myself.


media.ny1.com
Not bad
 
2014-03-25 10:52:16 PM
So if the muslim running my 7-Eleven down the street doesn't want to hire a woman clerk coz you know, she's a woman, he's protected on religious grounds, right?  And if he doesn't want his daughter to have a big cummer he has his cleric buddy cut her clit off and then beats her on religious ground, right?  And even if she has a SMOKIN' body he still drapes her in 5 layers in cloth but that's OK on religious grounds, right?
Some things seem to be OK, and others....
 
2014-03-25 10:55:25 PM
I hope Hobby Lobby wins. There, I said it.
 
2014-03-25 10:55:27 PM
It's not about really pleasing your imaginary sky-daddy so you get the brownie points for heaven.

It's 100% about disgusting old misogynists trying desperately to create lame excuses to keep those uppity women under control.

The sooner the old farts die off, the better,
 
2014-03-25 10:57:47 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.


Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.
 
2014-03-25 10:58:46 PM

Passive Aggressive Larry: You're not a church, you're a business, shut the fark up about your religion, treat your employees fairly, and get back to work.


So we should force Chick-Fil-A to open on Sundays then?
 
2014-03-25 10:59:55 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.


We should have buired Scalia (alive) in Renquist's coffin as an offering to the Gods.
 
2014-03-25 11:00:38 PM
Politics? In my Main tab? It's more likely than you think...

/blech
 
2014-03-25 11:03:11 PM
The problem here isn't that Hobby Lobby is complaining about providing health coverage. The problem is a system where your employer has anything whatsoever to do with your general health coverage.
 
2014-03-25 11:03:26 PM
Because he doesn't think contraception is good, this asshat wants to control the religious expression of all of his employees instead. Because if he doesn't want you to have contraception, then dang nab it, you shouldn't have access to it!
And family planning is an important part of women's health issues.
 
2014-03-25 11:03:27 PM

The Mulatto Maker: Politics? In my Main tab? It's more likely than you think...

/blech


Well the trolling isnt confinednto the bridge
 
2014-03-25 11:06:05 PM

Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.


That is a really stupid argument.
 
2014-03-25 11:06:35 PM
Animatronik:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I'm a dude, and even I know what endometriosis is and how they treat it.  Also, it happens to prove you wrong.  If Medicare can happily pay for penis pumps for dudes, women should be able to get all their bodily functions regulated and cared for, even the dirty sinful parts that make guys uncomfortable.  Hell, even if Medicare didn't pay for that.  It's just a simple bit of logic.
 
2014-03-25 11:09:00 PM

Russ1642: The problem here isn't that Hobby Lobby is complaining about providing health coverage. The problem is a system where your employer has anything whatsoever to do with your general health coverage.


Health coverage IS a benefit that a company's offers you to entice you to except their job offer.
 
2014-03-25 11:09:25 PM

EnderX: Well that article wasn't slant much Left............NOT!


*Everything* slants left if you think Fox Propaganda is fair and balanced.
 
2014-03-25 11:10:16 PM
The blue pill is fine for Rush Limbaugh, but women not getting knocked up is a bad thing? Some one tell him to get back in the kitchen and make me some pie
 
2014-03-25 11:10:42 PM

Animatronik: There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.


I can't believe even you are so stupid as to keep bringing up that talking point.

Preventing pregnancy (which is a dangerous medical condition) would be an excellent example of preventive medical care.

Never mind the other medical uses for birth control, like preventing ovarian cysts, lessening the symptoms of MPS, etc.
 
2014-03-25 11:10:58 PM
 
2014-03-25 11:11:49 PM

Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.


Wow, you're so totally wrong.
"It is well established that oral contraceptives are essential health care because they prevent unintended pregnancies," said study author Rachel K. Jones. "This study shows that there are other important health reasons why oral contraceptives should be readily available to the millions of women who rely on them each year."

Polycystic ovarian syndrome
Endometriosis
Lower ovarian cancer risk
Regulation of irregular menstruation

But you just go on being wrong, mmmkay?
 
2014-03-25 11:11:55 PM

karmaceutical: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

That is a really stupid argument.


True, but since the court will never hear anything remotely resembling it, it doesn't really matter.
 
2014-03-25 11:12:10 PM

Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.


You pack a lot false assertions in one paragraph. Impressive
 
2014-03-25 11:12:15 PM

EnderX: Russ1642: The problem here isn't that Hobby Lobby is complaining about providing health coverage. The problem is a system where your employer has anything whatsoever to do with your general health coverage.

Health coverage IS a benefit that a company's offers you to entice you to except their job offer.


Right, but his point is that health care should be at this point a universal right, and not a carrot/stick your employer (or even your union) should be allow to use against you.
 
2014-03-25 11:13:22 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: EnderX: Well that article wasn't slant much Left............NOT!

*Everything* slants left if you think Fox Propaganda is fair and balanced.


I cut off the right legs to my table and according to Fox News, it still slants left.
 
2014-03-25 11:13:28 PM

Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.


That would make sense if it were't completely wrong.
 
2014-03-25 11:13:58 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: EnderX: Well that article wasn't slant much Left............NOT!

*Everything* slants left if you think Fox Propaganda is fair and balanced.



I don't watch fox, I do listen to NPR............And that article was leaning so far left that Obama could see it.
 
2014-03-25 11:14:39 PM

EnderX: Passive Aggressive Larry: You're not a church, you're a business, shut the fark up about your religion, treat your employees fairly, and get back to work.

So we should force Chick-Fil-A to open on Sundays then?


Do you really think this a legit question?
 
2014-03-25 11:14:41 PM

FirstNationalBastard: scottydoesntknow: Wait, was I not supposed to before?


/Ohh yea, you're my baby, Ruth

I prefer Justice Sotomayor, myself.


I prefer myself to Justice Sotomayor.
 
2014-03-25 11:15:09 PM

Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.


Uh huh, and contraception that is used to treat a medical condition would fall where in your explanation of how it works"?
 
2014-03-25 11:15:11 PM

PastryChef: Because he doesn't think contraception is good, this asshat wants to control the religious expression of all of his employees instead. Because if he doesn't want you to have contraception, then dang nab it, you shouldn't have access to it!
And family planning is an important part of women's health issues.


THIS!!

Because if your employer doesn't pay for your birth control there is absolutely no other way to get it.
 
2014-03-25 11:17:04 PM

Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.


I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?
 
2014-03-25 11:18:01 PM

nucrash: Lee Jackson Beauregard: EnderX: Well that article wasn't slant much Left............NOT!

*Everything* slants left if you think Fox Propaganda is fair and balanced.

I cut off the right legs to my table and according to Fox News, it still slants left.


From my point of view you cut off the left legs.
 
2014-03-25 11:18:07 PM

tinyarena: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

Wow, you're so totally wrong.
"It is well established that oral contraceptives are essential health care because they prevent unintended pregnancies," said study author Rachel K. Jones. "This study shows that there are other important health reasons why oral contraceptives should be readily available to the millions of women who rely on them each year."

Polycystic ovarian syndrome
Endometriosis
Lower ovarian cancer risk
Regulation of irregular menstruation

But you just go on being wrong, mmmkay?


My wife uses it to completely control Catamenial Epilepsy.

/vasectomy

The only assholes that don't see it as medicine are the ones that actually see it as a tool for pussy to escape the control of men.
 
2014-03-25 11:18:17 PM

EnderX: Passive Aggressive Larry: You're not a church, you're a business, shut the fark up about your religion, treat your employees fairly, and get back to work.

So we should force Chick-Fil-A to open on Sundays then?


So far as I know selecting which hours you will be open for business isn't against the law.
 
2014-03-25 11:21:09 PM

Callous: nucrash: Lee Jackson Beauregard: EnderX: Well that article wasn't slant much Left............NOT!

*Everything* slants left if you think Fox Propaganda is fair and balanced.

I cut off the right legs to my table and according to Fox News, it still slants left.

From my point of view you cut off the left legs.


Now I have to cut them off too
 
2014-03-25 11:21:41 PM

physt: So tired of special rights for religion...


I know huh?

It's almost like these people think they have some kind of right to practice religion any way they see fit.
 
2014-03-25 11:23:48 PM

ciberido: EnderX: Passive Aggressive Larry: You're not a church, you're a business, shut the fark up about your religion, treat your employees fairly, and get back to work.

So we should force Chick-Fil-A to open on Sundays then?

So far as I know selecting which hours you will be open for business isn't against the law.


Actually, there are local laws in a lot of places that specify when some businesses can do business - like so-called "blue" laws, that forbid the sale of alcohol on Sunday, or at certain hours. These laws have not been found unconstitutional.
 
2014-03-25 11:24:03 PM

debug: but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?


My health insurance doesn't cover any OTC medication; why would it cover condoms?
 
2014-03-25 11:24:19 PM

Callous: physt: So tired of special rights for religion...

I know huh?

It's almost like these people think they have some kind of right to practice religion any way they see fit.


You do realize that this isn't how it works, right?
 
2014-03-25 11:26:33 PM

jso2897: ciberido: EnderX: Passive Aggressive Larry: You're not a church, you're a business, shut the fark up about your religion, treat your employees fairly, and get back to work.

So we should force Chick-Fil-A to open on Sundays then?

So far as I know selecting which hours you will be open for business isn't against the law.

Actually, there are local laws in a lot of places that specify when some businesses can do business - like so-called "blue" laws, that forbid the sale of alcohol on Sunday, or at certain hours. These laws have not been found unconstitutional.


They don't just "prevent the sale of alcohol"; here in PA a bar cannot be open on Sunday unless it also serves food.  And until recently, beer distributors could not be open at all on Sunday, even if they conducted other business.

Contra-wise, your boss can't make you work on your sabbath/holy day
 
2014-03-25 11:26:39 PM
My religious preferences and choices are not at all a part of an application or job interview. In fact, it is not legal for them to ask about it. As an employee, I give precisely zero farks what your religious preferences are, because they are not a part of my job.

My medical records and treatment are also not a part of my responsibility to a potential employer. You aren't asking about my medical history, and I am not providing that information during an interview, nor as a part of my actual work.

What insurance pays for and covers for my medical needs are "not your business" unless there is a reason for it to be, and unless it involves time off for lengthy care, you can be absolutely certain that it will remain none of your business.

You don't get access to my prescription history by being my employer. Whatever your religious beliefs are, as your employee, there is no reason that what I need insurance for and what you believe should cross paths.

Suck it, and stop trying to dictate my health based on your religion that I am not required to be a part of in order to offer my abilities and experience as your employee.
 
2014-03-25 11:28:02 PM

Callous: physt: So tired of special rights for religion...

I know huh?

It's almost like these people think they have some kind of right to practice religion any way they see fit.


You mean "impose religion as they see fit"

I don't care what puke you throw up as decor, but if you as an employer force me to pray East five times a day, you can get bent. If you fire me because I won't eat Fish on Friday, you can get bent. Pray as you want, practice as you want, just don't force me to endure your simpleminded ness.
 
2014-03-25 11:28:27 PM

Callous: physt: So tired of special rights for religion...

I know huh?

It's almost like these people think they have some kind of right to practice religion any way they see fit.


People do.  Companies, not so much.

See, people who own a company ARE NOT that company.  That's why the person pays their own taxes AND the company pays it's own, separate, taxes.  They're two separate entities.  So the company, being an inanimate object, does not have a religion and should not be able to discriminate based on religious grounds.
 
2014-03-25 11:31:20 PM

debug: Callous: physt: So tired of special rights for religion...

I know huh?

It's almost like these people think they have some kind of right to practice religion any way they see fit.

People do.  Companies, not so much.



Actually people don't either.
 
2014-03-25 11:31:36 PM

kronicfeld: Sweet. Can't wait to found my Sharia-based law firm.


Conversely, my Satanic firm will have the single-most stringent birth control policy: mandatory birth control for all but the best and brightest (upper management).

Verily the Dark Lord's will shall be done. Hail, "Religious Freedom"!
 
2014-03-25 11:31:51 PM

Dwight_Yeast: debug: but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

My health insurance doesn't cover any OTC medication; why would it cover condoms?


Because you should either cover birth control or not cover birth control.  Pick one.  It's not as if using condoms doesn't prevent a myriad of other health issues, just like the BCP does.
 
2014-03-25 11:32:26 PM
The question is unrelated to this law as Kennedy raised it, but what would prevent government from mandating abortion coverage in the future? There would be no constitutional argument against it.
 
2014-03-25 11:32:37 PM

EnderX: Russ1642: The problem here isn't that Hobby Lobby is complaining about providing health coverage. The problem is a system where your employer has anything whatsoever to do with your general health coverage.

Health coverage IS a benefit that a company's offers you to entice you to except accept their job offer.


I'm guessing that you aren't employed as an editor or copywriter.  His point, which seems to have escaped you, is that health coverage should be universal rather than a benefit for (some of) the employed.  That kind of system seems to work for every other first world country.  And many second and third worlds as well.
 
2014-03-25 11:33:35 PM
Lot of idiocy in this thread. You people DO know that Hobby Lobby DOES cover the pill--the only thing it doesn't cover are IUDs and the Morning After Pill (both of which they consider abortifacients).  Birth control pills used for hormone regulation and other medical problems are covered by the company. No company, as far as I know is required to pay for abortions. (Although there are plenty of people in this forum who entitledly caterwaul that the government refusing to pay for abortion on demand is some kind of Crime Against Women. ) I say again: idiocy.

Pregnancy is NOT a "dangerous medical condition" It's the natural result of unprotected sex and is an absolute necessity for the continuation of the human race. I would agree that pregnancy COULD be considered a "stupid, civilization-wrecking condition" if it's done by people who don't have the means (or a stable enough relationship) to support a child. Which is why I would encourage private businesses and charities to donate low-maintenance birth control to women at risk. But strong-arming EVERYONE into paying for birth control via the government is a form of tyranny which may come back to bite us in the end.  Birth control and family planning are far too important to be left to the inept social engineering of the government.
 
2014-03-25 11:33:37 PM

debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?


Who is really paying though?  Women are more expensive to insure, and the chance of complicated pregnancies scare the beejeesus out of the underwriters, I'm sure.  I'm not an insurance professional, but I'd wager that if anything... a plan that covers (even encourages) all kinds of family planning and contraception results in a lower group premium.  I would like to see the numbers illustrating the actual cost difference in a plan that "covers" birth control pills versus one that doesn't.

But... let us not fool ourselves into thinking this is somehow about cost.  This is purely about Hobby Lobby trying to regulate the behavior of their employees in a way that they just don't have the balls to do in actual policy.  They are bending the ACA to their own puritanical means, which is really kind of evil when you think about it.
 
2014-03-25 11:35:31 PM

debug: Dwight_Yeast: debug: but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

My health insurance doesn't cover any OTC medication; why would it cover condoms?

Because you should either cover birth control or not cover birth control.  Pick one.  It's not as if using condoms doesn't prevent a myriad of other health issues, just like the BCP does.


One is a drug that requires a doctor prescribe it. Pretty important difference.
 
2014-03-25 11:38:32 PM

Callous: physt: So tired of special rights for religion...

I know huh?

It's almost like these people think they have some kind of right to practice religion any way they see fit.


The whole point of "religious freedom" as construct in America is to protect us from the rule of the Church, not to compel us into someone else's religious practice.  No one is trying to tell anyone how to practice their religion... except for Hobby Lobby.  That is why there is a such a big dust-up over these ridiculously cheap and useful pills.
 
2014-03-25 11:38:34 PM

debug: Dwight_Yeast: debug: but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

My health insurance doesn't cover any OTC medication; why would it cover condoms?

Because you should either cover birth control or not cover birth control.  Pick one.  It's not as if using condoms doesn't prevent a myriad of other health issues, just like the BCP does.


Please tell me that you're not really that farking stupid.

That's like saying: my insurance covers morphine, so it has to cover aspirin as well.

/if we could make the birth control pill OTC, I would prefer that, but we can't. Hence my point.
 
2014-03-25 11:39:31 PM

yourmomlovestetris: Lot of idiocy in this thread. You people DO know that Hobby Lobby DOES cover the pill--the only thing it doesn't cover are IUDs and the Morning After Pill (both of which they consider abortifacients). Birth control pills used for hormone regulation and other medical problems are covered by the company. No company, as far as I know is required to pay for abortions. (Although there are plenty of people in this forum who entitledly caterwaul that the government refusing to pay for abortion on demand is some kind of Crime Against Women. ) I say again: idiocy.


Well then it's a good thing that neither the government nor the medical industry considers IUDS or or the morning after pill an abortifacient.
 
2014-03-25 11:39:37 PM

jst3p: debug: Dwight_Yeast: debug: but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

My health insurance doesn't cover any OTC medication; why would it cover condoms?

Because you should either cover birth control or not cover birth control.  Pick one.  It's not as if using condoms doesn't prevent a myriad of other health issues, just like the BCP does.

One is a drug that requires a doctor prescribe it. Pretty important difference.


I've never had a health insurance plan that paid for anything OTC.  That's how they have always done it - and this guy thinks they should just change it for him, because he has arbitrarily decided it should be about birth control..
 
2014-03-25 11:40:03 PM

jst3p: debug: Dwight_Yeast: debug: but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

My health insurance doesn't cover any OTC medication; why would it cover condoms?

Because you should either cover birth control or not cover birth control.  Pick one.  It's not as if using condoms doesn't prevent a myriad of other health issues, just like the BCP does.

One is a drug that requires a doctor prescribe it. Pretty important difference.


And can be obtained for free at any family planning clinic (unless that's changed since3 I took my girlfriend there in college).
 
2014-03-25 11:42:01 PM

EnderX: Well that article wasn't slant much Left............NOT!


Your double negative much confuse me.
 
2014-03-25 11:42:51 PM

Theaetetus: DamnYankees: Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to believe this is a case about abortion.

Oy. That makes it 5-4.


Well, technically it is about abortion. The only two (or four) types of "comtraception" they are seeking an exemption for are those that act like (I can't think of the correct term) abotiates, like The Morning After Pill. The companies lawyer has a very compelling case.
 
2014-03-25 11:44:24 PM

Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.


How is contraception not preventative care?
 
2014-03-25 11:44:37 PM
Solution:  Hobby Lobby employees shall only be allowed to have oral and/or anal sex.  GoPros shall be worn at all times to ensure compliance.  And a new profit stream.
 
2014-03-25 11:45:14 PM
Dear America, your priorities are messed the Fark up.  I can't believe this is even an issue.
 
2014-03-25 11:46:15 PM

debug: jst3p: debug: Dwight_Yeast: debug: but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

My health insurance doesn't cover any OTC medication; why would it cover condoms?

Because you should either cover birth control or not cover birth control.  Pick one.  It's not as if using condoms doesn't prevent a myriad of other health issues, just like the BCP does.

One is a drug that requires a doctor prescribe it. Pretty important difference.

And can be obtained for free at any family planning clinic (unless that's changed since3 I took my girlfriend there in college).


My wife's birth control runs $140/mo. without coverage, and it's the only one of four she's been on that doesn't drive her completely mad.  But, go on, tell us how it's free again.

/hint:  a lot of shiat is "free" in college
 
2014-03-25 11:47:27 PM

debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?


Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?
 
2014-03-25 11:47:46 PM

trailerpimp: So if the muslim running my 7-Eleven down the street doesn't want to hire a woman clerk coz you know, she's a woman, he's protected on religious grounds, right?  And if he doesn't want his daughter to have a big cummer he has his cleric buddy cut her clit off and then beats her on religious ground, right?  And even if she has a SMOKIN' body he still drapes her in 5 layers in cloth but that's OK on religious grounds, right?
Some things seem to be OK, and others....


wouldnt it be more rational to just ban all religion and be done with it?
treat it like the delusion and brainwashing that it is?

MEH
no worries, it is on the way out in the western world, and even the US is catching up.
too bad that other religion is growing like crazy
 
2014-03-25 11:48:29 PM

emersonbiggins: debug: jst3p: debug: Dwight_Yeast: debug: but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

My health insurance doesn't cover any OTC medication; why would it cover condoms?

Because you should either cover birth control or not cover birth control.  Pick one.  It's not as if using condoms doesn't prevent a myriad of other health issues, just like the BCP does.

One is a drug that requires a doctor prescribe it. Pretty important difference.

And can be obtained for free at any family planning clinic (unless that's changed since3 I took my girlfriend there in college).

My wife's birth control runs $140/mo. without coverage, and it's the only one of four she's been on that doesn't drive her completely mad.  But, go on, tell us how it's free again.

/hint:  a lot of shiat is "free" in college


STILL???
LOL
so she is pocketing the money ...
:D
 
2014-03-25 11:49:19 PM

debug: Dwight_Yeast: debug: but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

My health insurance doesn't cover any OTC medication; why would it cover condoms?

Because you should either cover birth control or not cover birth control.  Pick one.  It's not as if using condoms doesn't prevent a myriad of other health issues, just like the BCP does.


BCP is available by prescription only. Condoms are available all over the damn place, often for free.
 
2014-03-25 11:49:23 PM

EnderX: Well that article wasn't slant much Left............NOT!


dvdmedia.ign.com
 
2014-03-25 11:49:49 PM

yourmomlovestetris: Lot of idiocy in this thread.


Indeed.  You really didn't need to add to it.  We already had enough before you posted.
 
2014-03-25 11:50:09 PM

emersonbiggins: debug: jst3p: debug: Dwight_Yeast: debug: but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

My health insurance doesn't cover any OTC medication; why would it cover condoms?

Because you should either cover birth control or not cover birth control.  Pick one.  It's not as if using condoms doesn't prevent a myriad of other health issues, just like the BCP does.

One is a drug that requires a doctor prescribe it. Pretty important difference.

And can be obtained for free at any family planning clinic (unless that's changed since3 I took my girlfriend there in college).

My wife's birth control runs $140/mo. without coverage, and it's the only one of four she's been on that doesn't drive her completely mad.  But, go on, tell us how it's free again.

/hint:  a lot of shiat is "free" in college


Mine are currently running $50 a pack, and last year I had to try 3 different packs to get the right dosage. Turns out I don't do well on high estrogen pills.
 
2014-03-25 11:50:19 PM

SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?


And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.
 
2014-03-25 11:51:26 PM

namatad: trailerpimp: So if the muslim running my 7-Eleven down the street doesn't want to hire a woman clerk coz you know, she's a woman, he's protected on religious grounds, right?  And if he doesn't want his daughter to have a big cummer he has his cleric buddy cut her clit off and then beats her on religious ground, right?  And even if she has a SMOKIN' body he still drapes her in 5 layers in cloth but that's OK on religious grounds, right?
Some things seem to be OK, and others....

wouldnt it be more rational to just ban all religion and be done with it?
treat it like the delusion and brainwashing that it is?

MEH
no worries, it is on the way out in the western world, and even the US is catching up.
too bad that other religion is growing like crazy


This post gave me euphoria.
 
2014-03-25 11:52:38 PM

debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.


Reading isn't hard.
 
2014-03-25 11:52:42 PM

debug: Dwight_Yeast: debug: And can be obtained for free at any family planning clinic (unless that's changed since3 I took my girlfriend there in college).

Condoms are likewise free at those clinics, so what is your point, troll?


That they should either both be covered or neither


One is a drug that requires a doctors prescription. That is the difference. Willfully ignorant is a  type of ignorant.
 
2014-03-25 11:52:58 PM

emersonbiggins: debug: jst3p: debug: Dwight_Yeast: debug: but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

My health insurance doesn't cover any OTC medication; why would it cover condoms?

Because you should either cover birth control or not cover birth control.  Pick one.  It's not as if using condoms doesn't prevent a myriad of other health issues, just like the BCP does.

One is a drug that requires a doctor prescribe it. Pretty important difference.

And can be obtained for free at any family planning clinic (unless that's changed since3 I took my girlfriend there in college).

My wife's birth control runs $140/mo. without coverage, and it's the only one of four she's been on that doesn't drive her completely mad.  But, go on, tell us how it's free again.

/hint:  a lot of shiat is "free" in college


So by your logic, if someone were to go through $140 worth of condoms a month, then it would be ok if insurance covered them?  I didn't realize there was a price threshold to meet.

It seems like it would be beneficial to cover condoms, since it "should" be a small expense and it helps prevent the spread of so may other diseases that the insurance WILL have to pay to treat.
 
2014-03-25 11:53:10 PM

namatad: emersonbiggins: debug: jst3p: debug: Dwight_Yeast: debug: but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

My health insurance doesn't cover any OTC medication; why would it cover condoms?

Because you should either cover birth control or not cover birth control.  Pick one.  It's not as if using condoms doesn't prevent a myriad of other health issues, just like the BCP does.

One is a drug that requires a doctor prescribe it. Pretty important difference.

And can be obtained for free at any family planning clinic (unless that's changed since3 I took my girlfriend there in college).

My wife's birth control runs $140/mo. without coverage, and it's the only one of four she's been on that doesn't drive her completely mad.  But, go on, tell us how it's free again.

/hint:  a lot of shiat is "free" in college

STILL???
LOL
so she is pocketing the money ...
:D


now that you mention it... *checks wife's purse*
 
2014-03-25 11:54:09 PM

debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.


Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.
 
2014-03-25 11:54:14 PM

CanisNoir: Theaetetus: DamnYankees: Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to believe this is a case about abortion.

Oy. That makes it 5-4.

Well, technically it is about abortion. The only two (or four) types of "comtraception" they are seeking an exemption for are those that act like (I can't think of the correct term) abotiates, like The Morning After Pill. The companies lawyer has a very compelling case.



Really? Doesn't seem to have proven to be so far. Up to this point, they've lost. The only rulings they've won have been injunctions to delay the enforcement of the ruling.
Maybe this tie will prove the charm - but I wouldn't bet the farm on it, if I were you.
Not exactly my idea of a "compelling case".
 
2014-03-25 11:54:38 PM

yourmomlovestetris: Lot of idiocy in this thread. You people DO know that Hobby Lobby DOES cover the pill--the only thing it doesn't cover are IUDs and the Morning After Pill (both of which they consider abortifacients).  Birth control pills used for hormone regulation and other medical problems are covered by the company. No company, as far as I know is required to pay for abortions. (Although there are plenty of people in this forum who entitledly caterwaul that the government refusing to pay for abortion on demand is some kind of Crime Against Women. ) I say again: idiocy.

Pregnancy is NOT a "dangerous medical condition" It's the natural result of unprotected sex and is an absolute necessity for the continuation of the human race. I would agree that pregnancy COULD be considered a "stupid, civilization-wrecking condition" if it's done by people who don't have the means (or a stable enough relationship) to support a child. Which is why I would encourage private businesses and charities to donate low-maintenance birth control to women at risk. But strong-arming EVERYONE into paying for birth control via the government is a form of tyranny which may come back to bite us in the end.  Birth control and family planning are far too important to be left to the inept social engineering of the government.


i.imgbox.com
Well, this is of course an entirely different situation. As the leader of this community, may I be the first to offer you my hand in friendship. And now let us all go to my house for a little spunge cake and a little wine,,,
 
2014-03-25 11:57:01 PM

The_Fuzz: Dear America, your priorities are messed the Fark up.  I can't believe this is even an issue.


Or how about they choose one of the 20 other forms of contraception that HL will gladly cover and keep having sex like normal.

The amount of low information voters in here is astounding. At the very least watch some darn PBS or listen to NPR so you know what your talking about.
 
2014-03-25 11:57:27 PM

SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.


So women have to go through a rather invasive physical exam and get their doctor to write up a prescription which may or may not be covered by their insurance, if they happen to have insurance. Men can just barrel up to the vending machine in the bar and plop in fifty cents. Seems fair.
 
2014-03-25 11:58:58 PM

CanisNoir: The_Fuzz: Dear America, your priorities are messed the Fark up.  I can't believe this is even an issue.

Or how about they choose one of the 20 other forms of contraception that HL will gladly cover and keep having sex like normal.

The amount of low information voters in here is astounding. At the very least watch some darn PBS or listen to NPR so you know what your talking about.


You think the pill is only about contraception and you're calling other people "low information"? 

I read that correctly, right?
 
2014-03-25 11:59:37 PM

emersonbiggins: debug: jst3p: debug: Dwight_Yeast: debug: but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

My health insurance doesn't cover any OTC medication; why would it cover condoms?

Because you should either cover birth control or not cover birth control.  Pick one.  It's not as if using condoms doesn't prevent a myriad of other health issues, just like the BCP does.

One is a drug that requires a doctor prescribe it. Pretty important difference.

And can be obtained for free at any family planning clinic (unless that's changed since3 I took my girlfriend there in college).

My wife's birth control runs $140/mo. without coverage, and it's the only one of four she's been on that doesn't drive her completely mad.  But, go on, tell us how it's free again.

/hint:  a lot of shiat is "free" in college


Yup, cus millenials are stupid and they think that nobody pays that $6000 a year bill. harharhar yup!!! Stupid kids!!!

I grabbed a handful of condoms everytime I went to the clinic because I knew they were free and I'd rather have one than not. That stuff helps a lot.

It helps A LOT.
 
2014-03-25 11:59:47 PM

SundaesChild: SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.

So women have to go through a rather invasive physical exam and get their doctor to write up a prescription which may or may not be covered by their insurance, if they happen to have insurance. Men can just barrel up to the vending machine in the bar and plop in fifty cents. Seems fair.


One is a drug that requires a doctors prescription. Do you know why some drugs are over the counter and some require a doctors permission?
 
2014-03-26 12:00:14 AM

yourmomlovestetris: Pregnancy is NOT a "dangerous medical condition


So, you're saying that no woman has ever died from complications arising from pregnancy?  Pregnancy is indeed a medical condition and it can be quite dangerous.  Fortunately, it can be monitored, treated, or prevented entirely.
 
m00
2014-03-26 12:00:42 AM
The real problem is that corporations were ever considered people. This is just a natural extension of that notion. This isn't going to go away. Corporations are going to fight for more and more rights as people, even as real people get those same rights stripped away. I think it's better to lose this battle and win the war, because maybe if Hobby Lobby wins voters will force an action.
 
2014-03-26 12:01:33 AM

SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.


That point's been made and it doesn't really change the way I feel.  Condoms should be covered.  It's a minimal expense that should actually save the insurance company money that they would otherwise spend on VD treatments, AIDS/HIV drugs etc etc.
 
2014-03-26 12:02:11 AM

SundaesChild: So women have to go through a rather invasive physical exam and get their doctor to write up a prescription which may or may not be covered by their insurance, if they happen to have insurance. Men can just barrel up to the vending machine in the bar and plop in fifty cents. Seems fair.


When you use a condom it's not intentionally life-threatening, though this thread is making me wish it were.
 
2014-03-26 12:02:51 AM

Bane of Broone: CanisNoir: The_Fuzz: Dear America, your priorities are messed the Fark up.  I can't believe this is even an issue.

Or how about they choose one of the 20 other forms of contraception that HL will gladly cover and keep having sex like normal.

The amount of low information voters in here is astounding. At the very least watch some darn PBS or listen to NPR so you know what your talking about.

You think the pill is only about contraception and you're calling other people "low information"? 

I read that correctly, right?


The Pill isn't involved in this case and will still be covered. Thanks for proving my point.
 
2014-03-26 12:03:01 AM

jst3p: SundaesChild: SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.

So women have to go through a rather invasive physical exam and get their doctor to write up a prescription which may or may not be covered by their insurance, if they happen to have insurance. Men can just barrel up to the vending machine in the bar and plop in fifty cents. Seems fair.

One is a drug that requires a doctors prescription. Do you know why some drugs are over the counter and some require a doctors permission?


That is my point. Why are you arguing my own point with me?
 
2014-03-26 12:04:54 AM

debug: SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.

That point's been made and it doesn't really change the way I feel.  Condoms should be covered.  It's a minimal expense that should actually save the insurance company money that they would otherwise spend on VD treatments, AIDS/HIV drugs etc etc.


Reality isn't determined on how you  feel.Anti-bacterial cream can prevent infection that could save insurance companies money too, but it isn't covered. The pill isn't covered because it is a contraceptive, it is covered because it is a drug that should only be taken under doctors supervision.
 
2014-03-26 12:05:36 AM

SundaesChild: jst3p: SundaesChild: SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.

So women have to go through a rather invasive physical exam and get their doctor to write up a prescription which may or may not be covered by their insurance, if they happen to have insurance. Men can just barrel up to the vending machine in the bar and plop in fifty cents. Seems fair.

One is a drug that requires a doctors prescription. Do you know why some drugs are over the counter and some require a doctors permission?

That is my point. Why are you arguing my own point with me?


Sorry, I read it wrong. Pretend I was just agreeing with you.
 
2014-03-26 12:05:40 AM

karmaceutical: Callous: physt: So tired of special rights for religion...

I know huh?

It's almost like these people think they have some kind of right to practice religion any way they see fit.

The whole point of "religious freedom" as construct in America is to protect us from the rule of the Church, not to compel us into someone else's religious practice.  No one is trying to tell anyone how to practice their religion... except for Hobby Lobby.  That is why there is a such a big dust-up over these ridiculously cheap and useful pills.


Actually it's quite the opposite, it's in the 1A to protect the practice of religion from the government.  Unless you think that freedom of the press is to protect us from the press?  And freedom of speech is to protect us from anything you have to say?
 
2014-03-26 12:05:47 AM

debug: SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.

That point's been made and it doesn't really change the way I feel.  Condoms should be covered.  It's a minimal expense that should actually save the insurance company money that they would otherwise spend on VD treatments, AIDS/HIV drugs etc etc.


You could just go to Planned Parenthood and or any summer music festival and stock up for free, you know.
 
2014-03-26 12:05:54 AM

debug: That point's been made and it doesn't really change the way I feel. Condoms should be covered. It's a minimal expense that should actually save the insurance company money that they would otherwise spend on VD treatments, AIDS/HIV drugs etc etc.


I agree, but keep in mind you could make the same argument for several other OTC things too.
 
2014-03-26 12:06:07 AM

jso2897: CanisNoir: Theaetetus: DamnYankees: Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to believe this is a case about abortion.

Oy. That makes it 5-4.

Well, technically it is about abortion. The only two (or four) types of "comtraception" they are seeking an exemption for are those that act like (I can't think of the correct term) abotiates, like The Morning After Pill. The companies lawyer has a very compelling case.


Really? Doesn't seem to have proven to be so far. Up to this point, they've lost. The only rulings they've won have been injunctions to delay the enforcement of the ruling.
Maybe this tie will prove the charm - but I wouldn't bet the farm on it, if I were you.
Not exactly my idea of a "compelling case".


I'm basing it on PBS coverage of todays arguments. The government relied on an easily dismissed "slippery slope" argument. Their strongest point (and stickler imho) is that companies can't have a religion. It's gonba be interesting.
 
2014-03-26 12:07:54 AM

jst3p: debug: SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.

That point's been made and it doesn't really change the way I feel.  Condoms should be covered.  It's a minimal expense that should actually save the insurance company money that they would otherwise spend on VD treatments, AIDS/HIV drugs etc etc.

Reality isn't determined on how you  feel.Anti-bacterial cream can prevent infection that could save insurance companies money too, but it isn't covered. The pill isn't covered because it is a contraceptive, it is covered because it is a drug that should only be taken under doctors supervision.


I'm well aware of why the BCP is covered.  My point is that I think condoms should be covered too.  Do you understand that?  You clearly think they should not be and that's great.  I disagree.

Waht is your reason for condoms to not be covered?  It probably wouldn't raise your premimum at all if they were.  Not sure what the big problem is.
 
2014-03-26 12:09:55 AM

debug: jst3p: debug: SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.

That point's been made and it doesn't really change the way I feel.  Condoms should be covered.  It's a minimal expense that should actually save the insurance company money that they would otherwise spend on VD treatments, AIDS/HIV drugs etc etc.

Reality isn't determined on how you  feel.Anti-bacterial cream can prevent infection that could save insurance companies money too, but it isn't covered. The pill isn't covered because it is a contraceptive, it is covered because it is a drug that should only be taken under doctors supervision.

I'm well aware of why the BCP is covered.  My point is that I think condoms should be covered too.  Do you understand that?  You clearly think they should not be and that's great.  I disagree.

Waht is your reason for condoms to not be covered?  It probably wouldn't raise your premimum at all if they were.  Not sure what the big problem is.


Because by your logic almost everything at Walgreen's should be covered.
 
2014-03-26 12:10:51 AM

debug: Waht is your reason for condoms to not be covered? It probably wouldn't raise your premimum at all if they were. Not sure what the big problem is.


Again: why shouldn't aspirin be covered?
 
2014-03-26 12:12:28 AM

debug: jst3p: debug: SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.

That point's been made and it doesn't really change the way I feel.  Condoms should be covered.  It's a minimal expense that should actually save the insurance company money that they would otherwise spend on VD treatments, AIDS/HIV drugs etc etc.

Reality isn't determined on how you  feel.Anti-bacterial cream can prevent infection that could save insurance companies money too, but it isn't covered. The pill isn't covered because it is a contraceptive, it is covered because it is a drug that should only be taken under doctors supervision.

I'm well aware of why the BCP is covered.  My point is that I think condoms should be covered too.  Do you understand that?  You clearly think they should not be and that's great.  I disagree.

Waht is your reason for condoms to not be covered?  It probably wouldn't raise your premimum at all if they were.  Not sure what the big problem is.


Why would you want to wait two weeks to get in to see your doctor and then have him take your vitals and examine your junk and then have to spend a $15-$20 copay plus the $5-$20 or whatever for the prescription condoms just so can have sex, and you have to go through this every year to renew your prescription, when right now you can walk into any store and get 3 of them for maybe $2-3 immediately? Or free at Planned Parenthood?
 
2014-03-26 12:12:37 AM

Dwight_Yeast: debug: Waht is your reason for condoms to not be covered? It probably wouldn't raise your premimum at all if they were. Not sure what the big problem is.

Again: why shouldn't aspirin be covered?


Or band-aids? Or toothpaste?
 
2014-03-26 12:17:38 AM

Callous: physt: So tired of special rights for religion...

I know huh?

It's almost like these people think they have some kind of right to practice religion any way they see fit.



You're thinking of the  Free Exercise Clause, the Supreme Court was thinking of the Establishment Clause.When put together, they go like this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

And are interpreted by the Supreme Court like this:

..."Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."
(source)

This is why you're not allowed to sacrifice mixed race children on the white house lawn because god told you to stick it to the socialists Muslims who are oppressing you.

ehornsinedinburgh.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-26 12:18:03 AM

yourmomlovestetris: Lot of idiocy in this thread. You people DO know that Hobby Lobby DOES cover the pill--the only thing it doesn't cover are IUDs and the Morning After Pill (both of which they consider abortifacients).  Birth control pills used for hormone regulation and other medical problems are covered by the company. No company, as far as I know is required to pay for abortions. (Although there are plenty of people in this forum who entitledly caterwaul that the government refusing to pay for abortion on demand is some kind of Crime Against Women. ) I say again: idiocy.



Questions:

1) why should my employer get to pick and chose what medications I receive from my doctor?

2) why is it that some people like yourself always follow abortion with "on demand"? What does that phrase mean?
 
2014-03-26 12:20:02 AM
So if a Hobby Lobby is considered a being, and gets the right to incorporate their religious beliefs, would that mean a failed Hobby Lobby store in a particular location has the right to life and they must keep it open no matter how much energy it takes and money they lose? Or can they just abort it?
 
2014-03-26 12:20:25 AM

Dwight_Yeast: yourmomlovestetris: Lot of idiocy in this thread. You people DO know that Hobby Lobby DOES cover the pill--the only thing it doesn't cover are IUDs and the Morning After Pill (both of which they consider abortifacients).  Birth control pills used for hormone regulation and other medical problems are covered by the company. No company, as far as I know is required to pay for abortions. (Although there are plenty of people in this forum who entitledly caterwaul that the government refusing to pay for abortion on demand is some kind of Crime Against Women. ) I say again: idiocy.


Questions:

1) why should my employer get to pick and chose what medications I receive from my doctor?

2) why is it that some people like yourself always follow abortion with "on demand"? What does that phrase mean?


I demand an abortion! Right now! What? No, I'm not pregnant. Why do you ask?
 
2014-03-26 12:20:43 AM

SundaesChild: debug: jst3p: debug: SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.

That point's been made and it doesn't really change the way I feel.  Condoms should be covered.  It's a minimal expense that should actually save the insurance company money that they would otherwise spend on VD treatments, AIDS/HIV drugs etc etc.

Reality isn't determined on how you  feel.Anti-bacterial cream can prevent infection that could save insurance companies money too, but it isn't covered. The pill isn't covered because it is a contraceptive, it is covered because it is a drug that should only be taken under doctors supervision.

I'm well aware of why the BCP is covered.  My point is that I think condoms should be covered too.  Do you understand that?  You clearly think they should not be and that's great.  I disagree.

Waht is your reason for condoms to not be covered?  It probably wouldn't raise your premimum at all if they were.  Not sure what the big problem is.

Why would you wa ...


Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

You understand that other things that you must see a doctor aren't covered, right?  In most plans, if you don't have high cholestrol, preventative annual blood screenings aren't covered.  So it seems that having to see a doctor vs not having to see a doctor really isn't a condition of coverage.


Now, aside from your asprin/bandaid/toothpaste nonsense.  Why wouldn't you want condoms covered?  Just one decent reason would be fine.
 
2014-03-26 12:21:47 AM

CanisNoir: Theaetetus: DamnYankees: Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to believe this is a case about abortion.

Oy. That makes it 5-4.

Well, technically it is about abortion. The only two (or four) types of "comtraception" they are seeking an exemption for are those that act like (I can't think of the correct term) abotiates, like The Morning After Pill. The companies lawyer has a very compelling case.


How does it matter if its abortion? Does abortion have some sort of special status as a particular kind of religious belief that needs extra respect, as opposed to all other religious beliefs?
 
2014-03-26 12:23:43 AM

debug: SundaesChild: debug: jst3p: debug: SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.

That point's been made and it doesn't really change the way I feel.  Condoms should be covered.  It's a minimal expense that should actually save the insurance company money that they would otherwise spend on VD treatments, AIDS/HIV drugs etc etc.

Reality isn't determined on how you  feel.Anti-bacterial cream can prevent infection that could save insurance companies money too, but it isn't covered. The pill isn't covered because it is a contraceptive, it is covered because it is a drug that should only be taken under doctors supervision.

I'm well aware of why the BCP is covered.  My point is that I think condoms should be covered too.  Do you understand that?  You clearly think they should not be and that's great.  I disagree.

Waht is your reason for condoms to not be covered?  It probably wouldn't raise your premimum at all if they were.  Not sure what the big problem is.

Why would you wa ...

Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

You understand that other things that you must see a doctor aren't covered, right?  In most plans, if you don't have high cholestrol, preventative annual blood screenings aren't covered.  So it seems that having to see a doctor vs not having to see a doctor really isn't a condition of coverage.


Now, aside from your asprin/bandaid/toothpaste nonsense.  Why wouldn't you want condoms covered?  Just one decent reason would be fine.


You could argue that toothpaste prevents gingivitis and band aids acts as barriers against infection, so yes. They can prevent disease.
 
2014-03-26 12:24:43 AM

debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?


Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.
 
2014-03-26 12:29:18 AM

Dwight_Yeast: yourmomlovestetris: Lot of idiocy in this thread. You people DO know that Hobby Lobby DOES cover the pill--the only thing it doesn't cover are IUDs and the Morning After Pill (both of which they consider abortifacients).  Birth control pills used for hormone regulation and other medical problems are covered by the company. No company, as far as I know is required to pay for abortions. (Although there are plenty of people in this forum who entitledly caterwaul that the government refusing to pay for abortion on demand is some kind of Crime Against Women. ) I say again: idiocy.


Questions:

1) why should my employer get to pick and chose what medications I receive from my doctor?

2) why is it that some people like yourself always follow abortion with "on demand"? What does that phrase mean?


I could be wrong but nether of the two items in this case are considered "medication". Why should the government force a family to finance what they and their provable religious beliefs consider murder? With all the current exemptions the Government really cannot demonstrate a compelling interest in over riding HLs religious rights. Employees are at will and most other forms of contraception will be covered. The only ones being forved here iare the two companies.
 
2014-03-26 12:29:46 AM

jst3p: debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.


Great, niether of you have yet answered my question.  Why not cover condoms?  Why shouldn't having birth controlcovered by your insurance inclue ALL birth control?  What's the downside that you are fighting so much against covering them?
 
2014-03-26 12:30:25 AM

SundaesChild: debug: SundaesChild: debug: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I personally tend to view contraceptives as preventative care, but I don't see anyone providing condoms as part of their helath insurance, so why should they pay for the BCP?

Because the birth control pill treats other conditions than just preventing pregnancy. Next question?

And condoms prevent a lot of things other than just pregnancy.  Same question.

Condoms are available OTC. Pills are not.


Then make companies pay for a physical exam where the doctor prescribes the bc. That's fair, since it is to prevent health issues that may arise from using bc.

IMO, most bc should probably not be prescribed anyway.
 
2014-03-26 12:32:16 AM

CanisNoir: Why should the government force a family to finance what they and their provable religious beliefs consider murder?


I don't know - why do we force people to finance our military and the apparatus of administering death penalty? Should we be able to opt out of those things as well?
 
2014-03-26 12:33:23 AM

jst3p: debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.


Aspirin is also a blood thinner and is used in the preventative treatment of blood clots, among other medical issues.
 
2014-03-26 12:33:57 AM

debug: jst3p: debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.

Great, niether of you have yet answered my question.  Why not cover condoms?  Why shouldn't having birth controlcovered by your insurance inclue ALL birth control?  What's the downside that you are fighting so much against covering them?


I did answer. That logic would mean including everything in Wallgreen's. The pill isn't covered because it is birth control. It is covered because you need to take it under the supervision of a doctor. I am in favor of having everything that must be taken under a doctors supervision covered. I am not in favor of anything that has any preventative value being covered.
 
2014-03-26 12:34:00 AM

debug: jst3p: debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.

Great, niether of you have yet answered my question.  Why not cover condoms?  Why shouldn't having birth controlcovered by your insurance inclue ALL birth control?  What's the downside that you are fighting so much against covering them?


Because they are already cheap, widely available OTC and oftentimes even free! During my last visit to PP I got, in addition to my Nuva Ring, something like a dozen condoms at no charge at all. Why isn't "already free" good enough for you?
 
2014-03-26 12:34:03 AM

debug: jst3p: debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.

Great, niether of you have yet answered my question.  Why not cover condoms?  Why shouldn't having birth controlcovered by your insurance inclue ALL birth control?  What's the downside that you are fighting so much against covering them?


Because condoms are not a hot topic for women, and therefore arguing this point will not help democrats win elections.

Part of the reason is that, since condoms prevent disease transmission, they are justified as preventative treatment, which is why a lot of plans DO cover them.
 
2014-03-26 12:34:49 AM

DamnYankees: CanisNoir: Why should the government force a family to finance what they and their provable religious beliefs consider murder?

I don't know - why do we force people to finance our military and the apparatus of administering death penalty? Should we be able to opt out of those things as well?


Apples and oranges. For you to have a point we would need a single payer system.
 
2014-03-26 12:35:55 AM

Alicious: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

Uh huh, and contraception that is used to treat a medical condition would fall where in your explanation of how it works"?


Contraception used to treat a medical condition should be covered like any other medicine.

Pregancy is not a disease that need be prevented at all costs.
 
2014-03-26 12:36:52 AM
For anyone genuinely unclear on the subject, neither the IUD or Plan B cause abortions.  The IUD does require doctor approval and insertion.  This alone makes it a medical device worthy of insurance coverage.

  I'm not really sure if Plan B has been liberated from behind the pharmacy glass or not, but I feel it should be since it does not require a prescription - just like everything they keep back there that doesn't require a prescription, like the good decongestant.
 
2014-03-26 12:38:27 AM

CanisNoir: Apples and oranges. For you to have a point we would need a single payer system.

 How is that distinction important in determining constitutional or statutory compliance? I agree with you that it is 2 different things, but why does that difference matter?
"Pay me 5 bucks so I can hire than hitman" v. "pay that hitman 5 dollars" seem like two morally identical directives to me.
 
2014-03-26 12:39:37 AM

Animatronik: debug: jst3p: debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.

Great, niether of you have yet answered my question.  Why not cover condoms?  Why shouldn't having birth controlcovered by your insurance inclue ALL birth control?  What's the downside that you are fighting so much against covering them?

Because condoms are not a hot topic for women, and therefore arguing this point will not help democrats win elections.

Part of the reason is that, since condoms prevent disease transmission, they are justified as preventative treatment, which is why a lot of plans DO cover them.


Interesting.

In spite of their popularity, most health insurance companies do not cover condoms under their plans at the present time. However, this might be set to change under the edicts of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Under the new law, women with health insurance are likely to have access to condoms, with a prescription and without a co-pay. However, men do not have this option available to them.

So they will be covered. For women.

http://www.personalhealthinsurance.com/does-health-insurance-cover-c on doms/

That's kinda hilarious.
 
2014-03-26 12:39:58 AM

gadian: For anyone genuinely unclear on the subject, neither the IUD or Plan B cause abortions.  The IUD does require doctor approval and insertion.  This alone makes it a medical device worthy of insurance coverage.

  I'm not really sure if Plan B has been liberated from behind the pharmacy glass or not, but I feel it should be since it does not require a prescription - just like everything they keep back there that doesn't require a prescription, like the good decongestant.


IUD also requires a rather painful removal process after a certain number of years. And it can get lost in the uterus, rare but not impossible, making removal even more complex, even possibly warranting surgery.

Condoms just slip right off.
 
2014-03-26 12:42:39 AM

gadian: For anyone genuinely unclear on the subject, neither the IUD or Plan B cause abortions.  The IUD does require doctor approval and insertion.  This alone makes it a medical device worthy of insurance coverage.

  I'm not really sure if Plan B has been liberated from behind the pharmacy glass or not, but I feel it should be since it does not require a prescription - just like everything they keep back there that doesn't require a prescription, like the good decongestant.


Keeping the "Plan B" pills behind the counter was something the Religious Right forced the FDA into when they accounted they were going to make it non-perscription.
 
2014-03-26 12:43:03 AM

jst3p: Animatronik: debug: jst3p: debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.

Great, niether of you have yet answered my question.  Why not cover condoms?  Why shouldn't having birth controlcovered by your insurance inclue ALL birth control?  What's the downside that you are fighting so much against covering them?

Because condoms are not a hot topic for women, and therefore arguing this point will not help democrats win elections.

Part of the reason is that, since condoms prevent disease transmission, they are justified as preventative treatment, which is why a lot of plans DO cover them.

Interesting.

In spite of their popularity, most health insurance companies do not cover condoms under their plans at the present time. However, this might be set to change under the edicts of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Under the new law, women with health insurance are likely to have access to condoms, with a prescription and without a co-pay. However, men do not have this option available to them.

So they will be covered. For women.

http://www.personalhealthinsurance.com/does-health-insurance-cover-c on doms/

That's kinda hilarious.


To be fair, the BC and the condoms do benefit men that want to get laid without fear of knocking some chick up. So I don't know why reproduction is considered strictly a women's issue.
 
2014-03-26 12:43:06 AM

CanisNoir: Why should the government force a family to finance what they and their provable religious beliefs consider murder?


What do you mean "force to finance"?  Is health insurance free for employees of Hobby Lobby?
 
2014-03-26 12:44:00 AM

jst3p: So they will be covered. For women.


Well, female condoms are generally more expensive and not often available in the condom aisle.
 
2014-03-26 12:44:49 AM

DamnYankees: CanisNoir: Apples and oranges. For you to have a point we would need a single payer system.
 How is that distinction important in determining constitutional or statutory compliance? I agree with you that it is 2 different things, but why does that difference matter?
"Pay me 5 bucks so I can hire than hitman" v. "pay that hitman 5 dollars" seem like two morally identical directives to me.


No the difference is that the military and criminal justice system are paid through a general tax where elected representatives decide how to spemd it. Want to opt out? Elect someone who shares your views. You have recourse.
This is the government forcing one private entity to pay another private entity specifically for a service one side considers murder. Vastly different scenarios.
 
2014-03-26 12:44:50 AM

SundaesChild: jst3p: Animatronik: debug: jst3p: debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.

Great, niether of you have yet answered my question.  Why not cover condoms?  Why shouldn't having birth controlcovered by your insurance inclue ALL birth control?  What's the downside that you are fighting so much against covering them?

Because condoms are not a hot topic for women, and therefore arguing this point will not help democrats win elections.

Part of the reason is that, since condoms prevent disease transmission, they are justified as preventative treatment, which is why a lot of plans DO cover them.

Interesting.

In spite of their popularity, most health insurance companies do not cover condoms under their plans at the present time. However, this might be set to change under the edicts of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Under the new law, women with health insurance are likely to have access to condoms, with a prescription and without a co-pay. However, men do not have this option available to them.

So they will be covered. For women.

http://www.personalhealthinsurance.com/does-health-insurance-cover-c on doms/

That's kinda hilarious.

To be fair, the BC and the condoms do benefit men that want to get laid without fear of knocking some chick up. So I don't know why reproduction is considered strictly a women's issue.


While I agree it shouldn't be strictly a woman's issue I know guys. I will make sure my daughter knows not to rely on any guy in this area, it is all on her.
 
2014-03-26 12:45:41 AM

m00: The real problem is that corporations were ever considered people. This is just a natural extension of that notion. This isn't going to go away. Corporations are going to fight for more and more rights as people, even as real people get those same rights stripped away. I think it's better to lose this battle and win the war, because maybe if Hobby Lobby wins voters will force an action.


No.  Voters cannot influence the Supreme Court.

If Hobby Lobby wins, voters are powerless until a contradictory case emerges, is propagated all the way up to the Supreme Court, and is decided in such a way as to overturn the previous decision.

A very lengthy, chancy, and tall order.  The term "frightening" comes to mind.
 
2014-03-26 12:49:27 AM

jst3p: SundaesChild: jst3p: Animatronik: debug: jst3p: debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.

Great, niether of you have yet answered my question.  Why not cover condoms?  Why shouldn't having birth controlcovered by your insurance inclue ALL birth control?  What's the downside that you are fighting so much against covering them?

Because condoms are not a hot topic for women, and therefore arguing this point will not help democrats win elections.

Part of the reason is that, since condoms prevent disease transmission, they are justified as preventative treatment, which is why a lot of plans DO cover them.

Interesting.

In spite of their popularity, most health insurance companies do not cover condoms under their plans at the present time. However, this might be set to change under the edicts of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Under the new law, women with health insurance are likely to have access to condoms, with a prescription and without a co-pay. However, men do not have this option available to them.

So they will be covered. For women.

http://www.personalhealthinsurance.com/does-health-insurance-cover-c on doms/

That's kinda hilarious.

To be fair, the BC and the condoms do benefit men that want to get laid without fear of knocking some chick up. So I don't know why reproduction is considered strictly a women's issue.

While I agree it shouldn't be strictly a woman's issue I know guys. I will make sure my daughter knows not to rely on any guy in this area, it is all on her.


True enough, but unless they are gay you would think that the average dude would have a vested interest in his lady friend's BC being covered.
 
2014-03-26 12:50:40 AM

Trid_Kicker: m00: The real problem is that corporations were ever considered people. This is just a natural extension of that notion. This isn't going to go away. Corporations are going to fight for more and more rights as people, even as real people get those same rights stripped away. I think it's better to lose this battle and win the war, because maybe if Hobby Lobby wins voters will force an action.

No.  Voters cannot influence the Supreme Court.

If Hobby Lobby wins, voters are powerless until a contradictory case emerges, is propagated all the way up to the Supreme Court, and is decided in such a way as to overturn the previous decision.

A very lengthy, chancy, and tall order.  The term "frightening" comes to mind.


What, pray tell, is so "frightening" about it?
 
2014-03-26 12:50:43 AM

SundaesChild: jst3p: SundaesChild: jst3p: Animatronik: debug: jst3p: debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.

Great, niether of you have yet answered my question.  Why not cover condoms?  Why shouldn't having birth controlcovered by your insurance inclue ALL birth control?  What's the downside that you are fighting so much against covering them?

Because condoms are not a hot topic for women, and therefore arguing this point will not help democrats win elections.

Part of the reason is that, since condoms prevent disease transmission, they are justified as preventative treatment, which is why a lot of plans DO cover them.

Interesting.

In spite of their popularity, most health insurance companies do not cover condoms under their plans at the present time. However, this might be set to change under the edicts of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Under the new law, women with health insurance are likely to have access to condoms, with a prescription and without a co-pay. However, men do not have this option available to them.

So they will be covered. For women.

http://www.personalhealthinsurance.com/does-health-insurance-cover-c on doms/

That's kinda hilarious.

To be fair, the BC and the condoms do benefit men that want to get laid without fear of knocking some chick up. So I don't know why reproduction is considered strictly a women's issue.

While I agree it shouldn't be strictly a woman's issue I know guys. I will make sure my daughter knows not to rely on any guy in this area, it is all on her.

True enough, but unless they are gay you would think that the average dude would have a vested interest in his lady friend's BC being covered.


Sure, but until around 25 when hormones were raging I didn't always make the most rational decisions "in the moment".
 
2014-03-26 12:53:21 AM

SundaesChild: True enough, but unless they are gay you would think that the average dude would have a vested interest in his lady friend's BC being covered.


We're moving in that direction, but we're not there yet. Better sex ed helps.
 
2014-03-26 01:07:30 AM

CanisNoir: No the difference is that the military and criminal justice system are paid through a general tax where elected representatives decide how to spemd it. Want to opt out? Elect someone who shares your views. You have recourse.


How is that different from this? Elect people who would repeal the contraception mandate. That's the recourse.

CanisNoir: This is the government forcing one private entity to pay another private entity specifically for a service one side considers murder. Vastly different scenarios.


And yet you can't explain the difference. You're just re-asserting it. There's no difference.
 
2014-03-26 01:10:19 AM

CanisNoir: The companies lawyer has a very compelling case.


considering they got clement, it'd be surprising any other way
 
2014-03-26 01:12:14 AM

Animatronik: Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.


In what universe do you live, where contraception is not preventative care?

/didn't read the entire thread
//don't care how many other people called you out on this
///don't care if you don't actually believe it
////that you would type this is enough for a response
 
2014-03-26 01:13:53 AM

Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.


i75.photobucket.com

You just keep shiattin' all over yourself, don't ya Animatronik?
 
2014-03-26 01:15:53 AM

Animatronik: debug: jst3p: debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.

Great, niether of you have yet answered my question.  Why not cover condoms?  Why shouldn't having birth controlcovered by your insurance inclue ALL birth control?  What's the downside that you are fighting so much against covering them?

Because condoms are not a hot topic for women, and therefore arguing this point will not help democrats win elections.

Part of the reason is that, since condoms prevent disease transmission, they are justified as preventative treatment, which is why a lot of plans DO cover them.


Meanwhile, viagra is still a-okay because democrats are the real sexists.
 
2014-03-26 01:30:19 AM

DamnYankees: CanisNoir: No the difference is that the military and criminal justice system are paid through a general tax where elected representatives decide how to spemd it. Want to opt out? Elect someone who shares your views. You have recourse.

How is that different from this? Elect people who would repeal the contraception mandate. That's the recourse.

CanisNoir: This is the government forcing one private entity to pay another private entity specifically for a service one side considers murder. Vastly different scenarios.

And yet you can't explain the difference. You're just re-asserting it. There's no difference.


If you don't.know the difference between a general tax and the way healthcare iis paid for there's no hope for you. I'm off to bed, you just keep on thinking you've got a valid point. Someday it'll click.
 
2014-03-26 01:34:17 AM

Dwight_Yeast: gadian: For anyone genuinely unclear on the subject, neither the IUD or Plan B cause abortions.  The IUD does require doctor approval and insertion.  This alone makes it a medical device worthy of insurance coverage.

  I'm not really sure if Plan B has been liberated from behind the pharmacy glass or not, but I feel it should be since it does not require a prescription - just like everything they keep back there that doesn't require a prescription, like the good decongestant.

Keeping the "Plan B" pills behind the counter was something the Religious Right forced the FDA into when they accounted they were going to make it non-perscription.


MEH
Given that plan B is a very high dose of hormone, I have no problems with it being behind the counter.
I am guessing that the pharmacies would keep it behind the counter for no other reason than farking theft.  That shiat would magically disappear otherwise.

on a slight aside, can men get plan B? do you have to have a vagina to get it?
 
2014-03-26 01:40:21 AM

DamnYankees: CanisNoir: No the difference is that the military and criminal justice system are paid through a general tax where elected representatives decide how to spemd it. Want to opt out? Elect someone who shares your views. You have recourse.

How is that different from this? Elect people who would repeal the contraception mandate. That's the recourse.

CanisNoir: This is the government forcing one private entity to pay another private entity specifically for a service one side considers murder. Vastly different scenarios.

And yet you can't explain the difference. You're just re-asserting it. There's no difference.


To make it even easier for you to see your error, I'll buy into your false equivalency and point out that with both the military and criminal justice system, the government has an easily provable compelling interest. In this case, not so much due to the large number of exemptions already allowed.

/goodnight.
 
2014-03-26 01:41:36 AM
TheBigJerk:
Meanwhile, viagra is still a-okay because democrats are the real sexists.

do you KNOW how we know that you have never gotten viagra from your doctor?
hint: it isnt covered by insurance
 
2014-03-26 01:44:32 AM

namatad: on a slight aside, can men get plan B? do you have to have a vagina to get it?


Men can get it too.  Just wander up and ask.  You might get some looks, but they'll still sell it to you.
 
2014-03-26 01:45:51 AM

Trid_Kicker: m00: The real problem is that corporations were ever considered people. This is just a natural extension of that notion. This isn't going to go away. Corporations are going to fight for more and more rights as people, even as real people get those same rights stripped away. I think it's better to lose this battle and win the war, because maybe if Hobby Lobby wins voters will force an action.

No.  Voters cannot influence the Supreme Court.

If Hobby Lobby wins, voters are powerless until a contradictory case emerges, is propagated all the way up to the Supreme Court, and is decided in such a way as to overturn the previous decision.

A very lengthy, chancy, and tall order.  The term "frightening" comes to mind.


Actually if hobby lobby wins the owners should be publicly executed on the supreme court steps to honor the elder gods or some South American feathered serpent

Assuming they survive the attempted sacrifice, a VP should send out a memo stating Sith + rule of 2 is the one true religion followed by violent purging of all other VPs and assassination of the owners.  Legally that VP now assumes full ownership of the company as per the requirements of his religion.  Hopefully the new dark lord will finally carry industry standard power converters, rather the Trade Federation garbage the current owners have been trying to sell
 
2014-03-26 01:46:49 AM

karmaceutical: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

That is a really stupid argument.


Well if they just provide it to the brown people...


// oh yes I did,
 
2014-03-26 01:50:45 AM

Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.


YES THERE IS

/takes birth control for non contraceptive reasons
//avoiding pregnancy is as much a medical treatment - DEFINATELY preventative medocine - as Viagra anyhow.
///Viagra ain't emergency or preventative care either
////also you made that up re insurance
 
2014-03-26 01:53:16 AM

Peter von Nostrand: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

You pack a lot false assertions in one paragraph. Impressive


You certainly can't fault his verve though. To cram that much wrong into a single sentence takes guts. Gut, tenacity, and complete and utter lack of understanding of a topic, and the courage to soldier on anyway. It's impressive.

Again: companies don't pay for contraception. They don't pay for Viagra. They don't pay to get your arm set--with the exception of Workman's Comp, but even then, that is almost always paid out of an insurance plan. They don't pay for your cancer treatments. They don't pay for anything, directly. The person who has the plan, their needs, their treatments, their care, is between them, their doctors, and their insurer. Not the company. The company doesn't pay for any treatment. Period.

What employers do is set up a plan for their workers to buy into. They often contribute, but they still don't pay directly for any service that the worker gets. They pay their premiums, which are then put into the insurance company's kitty, and then they pay out claims. This particular argument keeps getting forwarded. Now then, I can see folks complaining that public assistance plans for treatment goes to contraception, for neonatal care, or the like, because those are direct payments from tax dollars. It's pretty damn stupid, because preventative care means less trips to the ER, less cost in the long run, and healthier children and folks who can contribute to the economy--and not drain public coffers later. But the argument that employers are "paying for" well, any treatment is simply not true. The insurance company, they pay. The employer? They pay for the plan, not the services. And the services are between the employees and their doctors.

Companies aren't paying for anything but the plan. How their employees use that plan, that's up to them. That's called "personal responsiblity." Roll it over the tongue a bit, Animatronik, because that's that pesky freedom that you tend to say is all trampled on. Say it with us. "Personal responsibility." Which means, that sometimes folks make choices we don't agree with. That we even think are terrible mistakes. But that's on their own heads, not anyone else.

What HL is essentially saying, is that they don't want to contribute to any fund that would allow such terrible things to be done. Oddly enough, I'm betting that the insurer does pay for those services that they don't like out of the company kitty. Which means, simply by having insurance, they are contributing to the very things that they despise. And are enabling with every check that they send. Already. Insurers don't just set aside specific checks to pay for things--that money goes into the bowels of their accounts, is often invested, turned into more cash elsewhere, and I'm betting, even invested in some things that the HL folks might find even more objectionable. Heck, I'm betting that some of the cash even goes for hookers and blow for the execs, who draw their pay from that kitty too. So, just by having the insurance, they are already paying for all manner of wrong, in their minds, and haven't been bright enough to realize this.
 
2014-03-26 01:54:19 AM

namatad: Dwight_Yeast: gadian: For anyone genuinely unclear on the subject, neither the IUD or Plan B cause abortions.  The IUD does require doctor approval and insertion.  This alone makes it a medical device worthy of insurance coverage.

  I'm not really sure if Plan B has been liberated from behind the pharmacy glass or not, but I feel it should be since it does not require a prescription - just like everything they keep back there that doesn't require a prescription, like the good decongestant.

Keeping the "Plan B" pills behind the counter was something the Religious Right forced the FDA into when they accounted they were going to make it non-perscription.

MEH
Given that plan B is a very high dose of hormone, I have no problems with it being behind the counter.
I am guessing that the pharmacies would keep it behind the counter for no other reason than farking theft.  That shiat would magically disappear otherwise.

on a slight aside, can men get plan B? do you have to have a vagina to get it?


It was BTC because they slapped a over 16 thing on it iirc.

I've bought Plan B BTC just to have on hand after a harrowing weekend adventure with my roommate trying to find it when it was still Rx. Unless the pharmacist is a jerk I see no reason why you couldn't. My SO routinely picks up my scripts (and one is controlled yet there's never an issue...)

/shrug
 
2014-03-26 01:57:35 AM

namatad: TheBigJerk:
Meanwhile, viagra is still a-okay because democrats are the real sexists.

do you KNOW how we know that you have never gotten viagra from your doctor?
hint: it isnt covered by insurance


"Almost true" is a  kind of true.

Is Viagra Covered by Health Insurance?
The high cost of Viagra, averaging $22 to $24 per pill, leads many men to seek health insurance coverage for this drug. However, insurance companies have been ambivalent about their coverage for ED drugs, with some insurers picking up the cost and others refusing to cover any portion of the bill.

http://www.personalhealthinsurance.com/does-health-insurance-cover-v ia gra/
 
2014-03-26 01:58:18 AM

hubiestubert: Peter von Nostrand: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

You pack a lot false assertions in one paragraph. Impressive

You certainly can't fault his verve though. To cram that much wrong into a single sentence takes guts. Gut, tenacity, and complete and utter lack of understanding of a topic, and the courage to soldier on anyway. It's impressive.

Again: companies don't pay for contraception. They don't pay for Viagra. They don't pay to get your arm set--with the exception of Workman's Comp, but even then, that is almost always paid out of an insurance plan. They don't pay for your cancer treatments. They don't pay for anything, directly. The person who has the plan, their needs, their treatments, their care, is between them, their doctors, and their insurer. Not the company. The company doesn't pay for any treatment. Period.

What employers do is set up a plan for their workers to buy into. They often contribute, but they still don't pay directly for any service that the worker gets. They pay their premiums, which are then put into the insurance company's kitty, and then they pay out claims. This particular argument keeps getting forwarded. Now then, I can see folks complaining that public assistance plans for treatment goes to contraception, for neonatal care, or the like, because those are direct payments from tax dollars. It's pretty damn stupid, because preventative care means less trips to the ER, less cost in the long run, and healthier children and folks who can contribute to the economy--and not drain public coffers later. But the argument that employers are "paying for" well, any treatment is simply not true. The insurance company, they pay. The employer? They pay for the plan, not the services. And the services are between the employees and their doctors.

Companies aren't paying for anything but the plan. How their employees use that plan, that's up to them. That's called "personal responsiblity." Roll it over the tongue a bit, Animatronik, because that's that pesky freedom that you tend to say is all trampled on. Say it with us. "Personal responsibility." Which means, that sometimes folks make choices we don't agree with. That we even think are terrible mistakes. But that's on their own heads, not anyone else.

What HL is essentially saying, is that they don't want to contribute to any fund that would allow such terrible things to be done. Oddly enough, I'm betting that the insurer does pay for those services that they don't like out of the company kitty. Which means, simply by having insurance, they are contributing to the very things that they despise. And are enabling with every check that they send. Already. Insurers don't just set aside specific checks to pay for things--that money goes into the bowels of their accounts, is often invested, turned into more cash elsewhere, and I'm betting, even invested in some things that the HL folks might find even more objectionable. Heck, I'm betting that some of the cash even goes for hookers and blow for the execs, who draw their pay from that kitty too. So, just by having the insurance, they are already paying for all manner of wrong, in their minds, and haven't been bright enough to realize this.


I might steal that hookers and blow argument. But don't think they aren't aware. It's just that the "abortion" wharrgarbal trumps all.

Anyhow, if HL doesn't want to buy into a plan that has to cover women's health (long overdue BTW) why can't they tell their employees to find their own insurance and take the penalty?

/rhetorical question
//7
 
2014-03-26 02:02:26 AM

Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.


You don't talk to very many women, do you?
 
2014-03-26 02:03:20 AM
StreetlightInTheGhetto: Anyhow, if HL doesn't want to buy into a plan that has to cover women's health (long overdue BTW) why can't they tell their employees to find their own insurance and take the penalty?

Apparently because Jesus doesn't like the idea of sacrifice for principles, especially when their is money on the line. It's one of his lesser known teachings.
 
2014-03-26 02:03:43 AM

jst3p: namatad: TheBigJerk:
Meanwhile, viagra is still a-okay because democrats are the real sexists.

do you KNOW how we know that you have never gotten viagra from your doctor?
hint: it isnt covered by insurance

"Almost true" is a  kind of true.

Is Viagra Covered by Health Insurance?
The high cost of Viagra, averaging $22 to $24 per pill, leads many men to seek health insurance coverage for this drug. However, insurance companies have been ambivalent about their coverage for ED drugs, with some insurers picking up the cost and others refusing to cover any portion of the bill.

http://www.personalhealthinsurance.com/does-health-insurance-cover-v ia gra/


My insurance covers it, no problem. Via a coworker.

I'm planning to spend several hours tomorrow on the phone with them contesting a physical they declined to cover (well they charged me for every blood test even though it was all done through my doctor's employer's facilities, and it was all fine 3 years ago when I last got one...) and making sure my sleep study is covered (last one scheduled they denied an hour prior).

Oh, yeah, and my generic BC is $25 copay. My other two generic scripts are $3 to $10. $90 a year difference.

/f--king hate this
 
2014-03-26 02:05:43 AM

jst3p: namatad: TheBigJerk:
Meanwhile, viagra is still a-okay because democrats are the real sexists.

do you KNOW how we know that you have never gotten viagra from your doctor?
hint: it isnt covered by insurance

"Almost true" is a  kind of true.

Is Viagra Covered by Health Insurance?
The high cost of Viagra, averaging $22 to $24 per pill, leads many men to seek health insurance coverage for this drug. However, insurance companies have been ambivalent about their coverage for ED drugs, with some insurers picking up the cost and others refusing to cover any portion of the bill.

http://www.personalhealthinsurance.com/does-health-insurance-cover-v ia gra/


Word on the interbutts is that the hobby lobby plan covers it.  Just like it USED to cover birth control, until the black democrat passed a healthcare bill.
 
2014-03-26 02:07:43 AM

hubiestubert: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Anyhow, if HL doesn't want to buy into a plan that has to cover women's health (long overdue BTW) why can't they tell their employees to find their own insurance and take the penalty?

Apparently because Jesus doesn't like the idea of sacrifice for principles, especially when their is money on the line. It's one of his lesser known teachings.


Of the 20 odd kids I was in Catholic youth leadership council with in HS, only one is a crazy Benedict admiring nutjob. Everyone else ranges from atheist to mass on holidays. And she's been posting like crazy on FB between this and Michigan gay marriage (the horror).

I brought up something as long those lines but my computer must be malfunctioning because I never got a response. Huh.
 
2014-03-26 02:10:38 AM

TheBigJerk: jst3p: namatad: TheBigJerk:
Meanwhile, viagra is still a-okay because democrats are the real sexists.

do you KNOW how we know that you have never gotten viagra from your doctor?
hint: it isnt covered by insurance

"Almost true" is a  kind of true.

Is Viagra Covered by Health Insurance?
The high cost of Viagra, averaging $22 to $24 per pill, leads many men to seek health insurance coverage for this drug. However, insurance companies have been ambivalent about their coverage for ED drugs, with some insurers picking up the cost and others refusing to cover any portion of the bill.

http://www.personalhealthinsurance.com/does-health-insurance-cover-v ia gra/

Word on the interbutts is that the hobby lobby plan covers it.  Just like it USED to cover birth control, until the black democrat passed a healthcare bill.


Heard that as well, but on phone = not gonna search it out.

Probably giving them credit with their customer base. It's all JoAnn or Michael's around here... Only HLs I know of are in conservative enclaves.
 
2014-03-26 02:14:31 AM

EnderX: Passive Aggressive Larry: You're not a church, you're a business, shut the fark up about your religion, treat your employees fairly, and get back to work.


So we should force Chick-Fil-A to open on Sundays then?


CanisNoir: Trid_Kicker: m00: The real problem is that corporations were ever considered people. This is just a natural extension of that notion. This isn't going to go away. Corporations are going to fight for more and more rights as people, even as real people get those same rights stripped away. I think it's better to lose this battle and win the war, because maybe if Hobby Lobby wins voters will force an action.

No.  Voters cannot influence the Supreme Court.

If Hobby Lobby wins, voters are powerless until a contradictory case emerges, is propagated all the way up to the Supreme Court, and is decided in such a way as to overturn the previous decision.

A very lengthy, chancy, and tall order.  The term "frightening" comes to mind.

What, pray tell, is so "frightening" about it?


Many of us don't think our personal lives should need to conform to our employer's C.E.O,'s religious beliefs.
 
2014-03-26 02:16:53 AM
The simple answer is to make birth control an over the counter drug. Expect the FDA to make that happen in the next few years.

My prediction, Hobby Lobby loses, 6-3. Possibly, 9-0.
 
2014-03-26 02:19:25 AM
Jeebus, the whining is reaching a crescendo.

C'mon people it's settled law.

Just like the 2nd Amendment.

Right?
 
2014-03-26 02:26:03 AM

Slam1263: Jeebus, the whining is reaching a crescendo.

C'mon people it's settled law.

Just like the 2nd Amendment.

Right?


Ffs
 
2014-03-26 02:29:11 AM

CanisNoir: Theaetetus: DamnYankees: Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to believe this is a case about abortion.

Oy. That makes it 5-4.

Well, technically it is about abortion. The only two (or four) types of "comtraception" they are seeking an exemption for are those that act like (I can't think of the correct term) abotiates, like The Morning After Pill. The companies lawyer has a very compelling case.


The word you're looking for is "abortifacient". Which is NOT what the Morning After Pill is.

The primary mechanism of action of combined estrogen-progestogen emergency contraceptive pills is to prevent fertilization by inhibition of ovulation.
 
2014-03-26 03:13:30 AM

debug: jst3p: debug: Why would you have to go to a doctor?  Just show your medical card at check out.  Seems pretty simple.

I don't think bandaids or toothpase or asprin prevent diseases, do they?

Band-aids prevent infection, kinda like condoms. Toothpaste prevents gum disease. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease.

Great, niether of you have yet answered my question.  Why not cover condoms?  Why shouldn't having birth controlcovered by your insurance inclue ALL birth control?  What's the downside that you are fighting so much against covering them?


You are very conveniently ignoring the core of the argument. It is not that they are all fighting against covering condoms, they are patiently explaining to you why your argument (i.e. your false equivalence) is bad.

BCP is covered because it is a prescription that women have to have invasive yearly exams to receive- NOT because it is a contraceptive. Condoms are over the counter, which NO insurance covers for ANYTHING (however FlexBen/HSA's do). You know what else is over the counter that is not covered by insurance? The morning after pill. So, this means that you are in favor of the morning after pill (Plan B) to be covered as well? Or just another troll enjoying a lot of successes?
 
2014-03-26 03:29:24 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: jst3p: namatad: TheBigJerk:
Meanwhile, viagra is still a-okay because democrats are the real sexists.

do you KNOW how we know that you have never gotten viagra from your doctor?
hint: it isnt covered by insurance

"Almost true" is a  kind of true.

Is Viagra Covered by Health Insurance?
The high cost of Viagra, averaging $22 to $24 per pill, leads many men to seek health insurance coverage for this drug. However, insurance companies have been ambivalent about their coverage for ED drugs, with some insurers picking up the cost and others refusing to cover any portion of the bill.

http://www.personalhealthinsurance.com/does-health-insurance-cover-v ia gra/

My insurance covers it, no problem. Via a coworker.

I'm planning to spend several hours tomorrow on the phone with them contesting a physical they declined to cover (well they charged me for every blood test even though it was all done through my doctor's employer's facilities, and it was all fine 3 years ago when I last got one...) and making sure my sleep study is covered (last one scheduled they denied an hour prior).

Oh, yeah, and my generic BC is $25 copay. My other two generic scripts are $3 to $10. $90 a year difference.

/f--king hate this


That's why it's not covered.  Most policies don't cover preventative screening.  Now if you had already been diagnosed with high choloesterol, the blood work would be covered.  Isn't that stupid?
 
2014-03-26 04:13:49 AM
I'd get in between Kagan and Soto in a heartbeat.  But Ginsburg?  Only if I had access to a TARDIS.
 
2014-03-26 04:16:05 AM

yourmomlovestetris: Lot of idiocy in this thread. You people DO know that Hobby Lobby DOES cover the pill--the only thing it doesn't cover are IUDs and the Morning After Pill (both of which they consider abortifacients).  Birth control pills used for hormone regulation and other medical problems are covered by the company. No company, as far as I know is required to pay for abortions. (Although there are plenty of people in this forum who entitledly caterwaul that the government refusing to pay for abortion on demand is some kind of Crime Against Women. ) I say again: idiocy.

Pregnancy is NOT a "dangerous medical condition" It's the natural result of unprotected sex and is an absolute necessity for the continuation of the human race. I would agree that pregnancy COULD be considered a "stupid, civilization-wrecking condition" if it's done by people who don't have the means (or a stable enough relationship) to support a child. Which is why I would encourage private businesses and charities to donate low-maintenance birth control to women at risk. But strong-arming EVERYONE into paying for birth control via the government is a form of tyranny which may come back to bite us in the end.  Birth control and family planning are far too important to be left to the inept social engineering of the government.


There's a lot of idiocy in this post. You do know that Hobby Lobby is in no position to make any sort of medical decision, especially one catagorizing IUDs and Plan B, both of which are actually the same medication, Levonorgestrel. Levonorgestrel only prevents ovulation, it does not prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. And who asked private corporations to pay for abortions? Idiocy.

And, yes, pregnancy is the natural result of unprotected sex and an absolute necessity for the continuation of the human race. However, it is also an extremely dangerous medical condition which can lead to pain, heartburn, anemia, high blood pressure, insomnia, mood swings, nausea, vomiting, mastitis, bleeding from various orafices, overactive bladder, oedema and death.

How would you encourage private groups to pay for others' birth control? Seriously. We had 50 years to pull our collective heads from our asses and it didn't happen. We had to ask our governing body to step in and do something. And don't act like its strong-arming, in a March 2014 NBC/WSJ[PDF] poll, 53% of people supported the mandate for contraception coverage. In a March 2012 PRRI[PDF] poll, 53% supported the mandate. A March 2012 Washington Post/ABC News poll showed 61% support for the mandate. A Feb. 2012 KFF study showed 63% support for the mandate.

In fact, only two studies I found had an opposite finding, a December 2013 Rasmussen poll indicating 51% opposing the mandate and a December 2013 WPA Opinion Research[PDF] survey indicating 59% opposition. You can take that as you will, however, I do not find either of these surveys credible. The Rassmussen poll hides its details behind a paywall, leaving me unable to see the exact numbers and the wording of the question seems, to me, a tad leading. Additionally, Rasmussen has consistently been in the bottom 5 of major polling groups for accuracy. The WPAOR poll didn't even release the wording of the questions and was commissioned by the Family Research Council, a known hate group per the Southern Poverty Law Center; everything about them is suspect.

Anyway, the majority of polls show that the American people are for the contraceptive mandate. There's no tyranny. And, lest you forget, we are a government "of The People, by The People and for The People". If government is incompetent, then it is a problem with The People. Garbage in, garbage out. And, more than that, birth control and family planning will still be handled by medical professionals; no part of the PPACA removed the private medical professional from the equation and the only relevant part for this conversation only added that private insurers must cover FDA approved contraception. And, man oh man, being able to get easy access to contraception is really going to bite us in the ass, the same as legalizing abortion did[PDF], when unplanned pregnancies drop, leading to fewer households worrying how they're going to feed their kids, leading to less crime, leading to a better society, all around.

CanisNoir: I could be wrong but nether of the two items in this case are considered "medication".


You are and, yes, they are. They are two different delivery methods for Levonorgestrel, a second generation synthetic progestogen used as an active ingredient in some hormonal contraceptives[Wikipedia]. They most certainly are medications. As to why a company should be compelled to provide coverage that the owner doesn't agree with: that is the cost of doing business in our society. Long ago, we decided that, to function as a society, certain concessions would have to be made by everyone involved. That's why you can't kick me out of your diner because I'm the product of miscegenation. Everyone gets the same basic share.

In this case, Society decided that the health and well-being of its people, all its people, is worth putting money into and protecting the structure of and businesses decided long ago to offer healthcare instead of higher wages. They chose to provide healthcare and we chose what healthcare would mean. If you or Hobby Lobby do not want to abide by this social contract, I hear Somalia is really nice this time of year. And, as so many before me have pointed out, Hobby Lobby didn't have a single issue with Levonorgestrel being covered until the PPACA said it had to be covered[PDF] (Paragraph 55).

And, if Hobby Lobby isn't just trying to be contrary dicks, then why are we in court? Their supposed beef is that Plan B and IUDs can cause abortions when there isn't a credible medical professional in the world that would say that they do. Plan B used to be thought to prevent implantation, but it has been common medical knowledge for years and the FDA was being petitioned to have this erroneous assertion removed from labeling months before Hobby Lobby filed its original complaint.
 
2014-03-26 04:23:26 AM

fusillade762: EnderX: Well that article wasn't slant much Left............NOT!

Your double negative much confuse me.


...NOT?

/dunno
 
2014-03-26 05:04:59 AM

TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.


I don't think Emerson meant that foolish people should literally say "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" as an excuse for their foolish behavior. Ya never know though, he was at times a twit.
 
2014-03-26 05:15:23 AM
Whodathunkit, a left slanted opinion piece getting greenlit on fark and touted as fact.

The math here is simple: YOU use birth control; they disagree with birth control. YOU pay for the birth control YOU freely choose to use. Not force someone else to violate their beliefs.

I think the SCOTUS is going to get this one right. What's too bad is that it's being fought on the grounds of religious freedom, and not general 1st amendment freedom of expression like it should be.

And hooey to the feminists for showing their true colors. Not satisfied to have the freedom to prevent and abort pregnancies, they also feel the need to force others to pay for their decisions, or lack thereof. And I really dug their cause when they were seeking equality too.
 
2014-03-26 05:46:00 AM

Elvis Presleys Death Throne: Whodathunkit, a left slanted opinion piece getting greenlit on fark and touted as fact.

The math here is simple: YOU use birth control; they disagree with birth control. YOU pay for the birth control YOU freely choose to use. Not force someone else to violate their beliefs.

I think the SCOTUS is going to get this one right. What's too bad is that it's being fought on the grounds of religious freedom, and not general 1st amendment freedom of expression like it should be.

And hooey to the feminists for showing their true colors. Not satisfied to have the freedom to prevent and abort pregnancies, they also feel the need to force others to pay for their decisions, or lack thereof. And I really dug their cause when they were seeking equality too.


The debate on if the government can set, and compel, employers to offer insurance covering a set amount of services and products has already been concluded, legally speaking.  If you want to go back to that debate feel free to vote for like minded people who will change the law to not require things that you don't want to be covered to be covered.  What we are debating now is under what circumstances a company's owners can disregard the law.  Their argument isn't even particularly limited to health care.  There is no reason their argument and this ruling couldn't be applied to many other things such as worker's safety laws and anti-discrimination laws just to name a few.  Quit confusing the issue.
 
2014-03-26 06:02:49 AM
We really need to reform the Supreme Court. A bunch of old guys who are put in a position of power for life with no input from the public and stay there way past the point of dementia? That seems undemocratic. Of course, reforming SCOTUS would involve major changes to the constitution, and I don't think that's ever happened before.
Can anyone think of a better way for the Supreme Court to be run?
 
2014-03-26 06:53:31 AM

jbc: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

Are you trying to suggest Scalia is capable of logical thought?


Are you trying to suggest you're more well-schooled in law than a Supreme Court Justice?
 
2014-03-26 06:55:12 AM

physt: So tired of special rights for religion...


So tired of people thinking day after pills are a right...
 
2014-03-26 07:08:11 AM
Another thread trashed by a "Why Daddy?" troll.
 
2014-03-26 07:11:56 AM
FTA "Everything would be piecemeal; nothing would be uniform"

So, if they find against Hobby Lobby then all of the exemptions and extensions given by the Obama administration would also fall under this brand of logic too right? I mean it's already as piecemeal as it is precisely because of all of those executive orders changing the law for some but not for others. This is a very bad argument to make on the part of the court if the altering of the law by executive fiat ever comes up in front of the court,

karmaceutical: The whole point of "religious freedom" as construct in America is to protect us from the rule of the Church, not to compel us into someone else's religious practice. No one is trying to tell anyone how to practice their religion... except for Hobby Lobby. That is why there is a such a big dust-up over these ridiculously cheap and useful pills.


Hobby Lobby is NOT preventing their employees from using the Morning After Pill nor are they preventing their employees from getting an abortion. What they are saying is that they don't want to facilitate it by paying for it due to religious reasons. Specifically because their religion considers it a sin and by facilitating that sin they are in fact also committing the same sin as if they themselves were performing an abortion. The law does already recognize that being an accomplice makes you just as responsible for the crime even if they did not commit the crime (getaway drivers where the robbery ended up with the murder of the clerk while the driver sat in the car and didn't even have a weapon for example).

Not being forced by the government to be an active participant in what they consider to be a sin should fall under the separation of church and state. Conscientious Objector laws due to religious reasons are already in place and this could and should fall into that category.
 
2014-03-26 07:22:42 AM
Hobby Lobby actually pays their employees enough that they should be able to pay out of pocket for the few contraceptives that Hobby Lobby does not wish to have covered.  It's not like they are refusing to cover any kinds of birth control.  My insurance doesn't cover Depo shots which I prefer over instead of the pill for treatment of medical issues.  I simply just pay the $45 for the generic every three months and it's not that big a deal.
 
2014-03-26 07:29:47 AM

Radioactive Ass: FTA "Everything would be piecemeal; nothing would be uniform"

So, if they find against Hobby Lobby then all of the exemptions and extensions given by the Obama administration would also fall under this brand of logic too right? I mean it's already as piecemeal as it is precisely because of all of those executive orders changing the law for some but not for others. This is a very bad argument to make on the part of the court if the altering of the law by executive fiat ever comes up in front of the court,

karmaceutical: The whole point of "religious freedom" as construct in America is to protect us from the rule of the Church, not to compel us into someone else's religious practice. No one is trying to tell anyone how to practice their religion... except for Hobby Lobby. That is why there is a such a big dust-up over these ridiculously cheap and useful pills.

Hobby Lobby is NOT preventing their employees from using the Morning After Pill nor are they preventing their employees from getting an abortion. What they are saying is that they don't want to facilitate it by paying for it due to religious reasons. Specifically because their religion considers it a sin and by facilitating that sin they are in fact also committing the same sin as if they themselves were performing an abortion. The law does already recognize that being an accomplice makes you just as responsible for the crime even if they did not commit the crime (getaway drivers where the robbery ended up with the murder of the clerk while the driver sat in the car and didn't even have a weapon for example).

Not being forced by the government to be an active participant in what they consider to be a sin should fall under the separation of church and state. Conscientious Objector laws due to religious reasons are already in place and this could and should fall into that category.


Hobby Lobby isn't a person. I repeat, Hobby Lobby isn't a person. It does not have a religion. It is a thing.

SomeFarkinFarmgirl: Hobby Lobby actually pays their employees enough that they should be able to pay out of pocket for the few contraceptives that Hobby Lobby does not wish to have covered.  It's not like they are refusing to cover any kinds of birth control.  My insurance doesn't cover Depo shots which I prefer over instead of the pill for treatment of medical issues.  I simply just pay the $45 for the generic every three months and it's not that big a deal.


Once again, Hobby Lobby isn't a person. It's a business. It's a thing. It has no "beliefs" protected by the Constitution.

And you are clearly missing the point. If a THING can deny this to PEOPLE, there's little to stop other medical procedures from being covered.
 
2014-03-26 07:30:55 AM

Richard C Stanford: We really need to reform the Supreme Court. A bunch of old guys who are put in a position of power for life with no input from the public and stay there way past the point of dementia? That seems undemocratic. Of course, reforming SCOTUS would involve major changes to the constitution, and I don't think that's ever happened before.
Can anyone think of a better way for the Supreme Court to be run?


Yes. Don't elect sh*tpieces President. Then more sh*tpieces don't get nominated to the court.
 
2014-03-26 07:49:38 AM
Cool that people are forced to violate their religious beliefs, because they are christian?

How low liberals have sunk.
 
2014-03-26 07:52:05 AM

NickelP: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: Whodathunkit, a left slanted opinion piece getting greenlit on fark and touted as fact.

The math here is simple: YOU use birth control; they disagree with birth control. YOU pay for the birth control YOU freely choose to use. Not force someone else to violate their beliefs.

I think the SCOTUS is going to get this one right. What's too bad is that it's being fought on the grounds of religious freedom, and not general 1st amendment freedom of expression like it should be.

And hooey to the feminists for showing their true colors. Not satisfied to have the freedom to prevent and abort pregnancies, they also feel the need to force others to pay for their decisions, or lack thereof. And I really dug their cause when they were seeking equality too.

The debate on if the government can set, and compel, employers to offer insurance covering a set amount of services and products has already been concluded, legally speaking.  If you want to go back to that debate feel free to vote for like minded people who will change the law to not require things that you don't want to be covered to be covered.  What we are debating now is under what circumstances a company's owners can disregard the law.  Their argument isn't even particularly limited to health care.  There is no reason their argument and this ruling couldn't be applied to many other things such as worker's safety laws and anti-discrimination laws just to name a few.  Quit confusing the issue.


I'm completely with you that this case is a result of determining that Obamacare should be able to force employers to provide certain services, and that the last SCOTUS case lead to this one. Forcing people(because yes, Hobby Lobby IS owned by a family, much like any mom and pop organic fruitstand) to violate their personal beliefs is an unforseen(by many) and forawwb(by a devious) few side effect of Obamacare. I'm also with you that this could and should be applied to many other issues as well, but in this particular context the freedom to use contraception should be paired with the freedom to pay for it yourself
 
2014-03-26 07:55:26 AM

Dwight_Yeast: Animatronik: There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I can't believe even you are so stupid as to keep bringing up that talking point.

Preventing pregnancy (which is a dangerous medical condition) would be an excellent example of preventive medical care.

Never mind the other medical uses for birth control, like preventing ovarian cysts, lessening the symptoms of MPS, etc.


So would preventing people from being fat. Are we to legislate that? Preventing people from being born out of wedlock, going to legislate that? Guess who would have a problem with those little laws?
 
2014-03-26 07:59:13 AM

verbaltoxin: Hobby Lobby isn't a person. I repeat, Hobby Lobby isn't a person. It does not have a religion. It is a thing.


The SCOTUS has already ruled that there is such a thing as corporate personhood and that they have real 14th amendment protections. Take it up with them. This particular case is in front of the SCOTUS because a lower federal court (10th circuit) has already deemed them as such and had extended them protection using corporate personhood under the religious freedom act of 1993.
 
2014-03-26 07:59:50 AM

jaybeezey: physt: So tired of special rights for religion...

So tired of people thinking day after pills are a right...


They are available over the counter, so not the issue here.
 
2014-03-26 08:07:36 AM
Someone point out to me the exact passage or passages in the Bible that says anything along the lines of "thou shalt not prevent the birth of a child" and I'll say Hobby Lobby *may* have a case. Furthermore, point it out in the Quran or should it be any different than the Old Testament, the Torah.

This boils down to "can a business exercise the freedom of religion?" The answer to this question is no. And furthermore, they aren't people; at best it is a collection of people, but a business exists to make money, not spread "The Word."

/Seriously, leave your worship where it belongs; in a place of worship. When you're done with your sky-wizard delusion, join the rest of the real world, where we have real problems that require real answers.
 
2014-03-26 08:13:01 AM

karmaceutical: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

That is a really stupid argument.

That's what you get when your whole life is geared around hating "libs." Not helping America, not the Constitution, not the will of the People, not reason; just Hating Libs.
 
2014-03-26 08:14:07 AM

John Buck 41: I hope Hobby Lobby wins. There, I said it.


Hobby Lobby winning means that your employer can force their religious views on you. Why would you want that?
 
2014-03-26 08:18:13 AM

Callous: PastryChef: Because he doesn't think contraception is good, this asshat wants to control the religious expression of all of his employees instead. Because if he doesn't want you to have contraception, then dang nab it, you shouldn't have access to it!
And family planning is an important part of women's health issues.

THIS!!

Because if your employer doesn't pay for your birth control there is absolutely no other way to get it.


Because if your employer doesn't pay for your cancer treatment there is absolutely no other way to get it.
Because if your employer doesn't pay for your blood transfusion there is absolutely no other way to get it.
 
2014-03-26 08:27:19 AM

kronicfeld: Sweet. Can't wait to found my Sharia-based law firm.



I'm going to convert my corporation/person  to Christian Scientist. We don't believe in most medicine, not even blood transfusions. I am gonna save a bundle!
 
2014-03-26 08:28:30 AM

DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?


I see where you are confused. You appear to be overlooking the fact that Scalia is an asshole and doesn't care.
 
2014-03-26 08:30:14 AM

Animatronik: Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.


Except that oral contraceptives ARE used for medical reasons other than contraception like ovarian cysts and regulation periods.
 
2014-03-26 08:32:19 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: Hobby Lobby winning means that your employer can force their religious views on you. Why would you want that?


No, it does not. They wouldn't be "Forcing" anyone to do anything. If they required their employees to wear a Cross, or a Burka for that matter, then they would be "Forcing" their religious views on their employees. If they required that their employees tithe every week then they would be "Forcing" their religious views on them. If they required regular church attendance as a condition of employment then they would be "Forcing" their religious views on them.

This case is not anywhere close to those examples. They are saying that they shouldn't be forced by the government under penalty of law to violate their own religious tenets by being forced to pay for contraceptives for their employees under the ACA. They are not (and have not) argued that they can fire or otherwise punish any employee for using contraceptives on their own dime. That would be forcing their religion on them and is already illegal.
 
2014-03-26 08:41:25 AM

SpectroBoy: Except that oral contraceptives ARE used for medical reasons other than contraception like ovarian cysts and regulation periods.


Except that the ACA specifically says that it must be provided explicitly for contraceptive purposes. I don't think that anyone (sane at least) is arguing that if any drug (not just the pill) was provided for other valid medical reasons and that one of the side effects was preventing a woman from getting pregnant that the pill should still not be allowed to be covered under their health care plan. If that were the case then chemotherapy (for example, there are plenty of other medicines that can render a woman temporarily infertile) would also be being contested.
 
2014-03-26 08:53:43 AM

Thunderpipes: Cool that people are forced to violate their religious beliefs, because they are christian?


Domestic battery laws violate the religious beliefs of those who practice Sharia.
 
2014-03-26 08:54:24 AM
I'll support people getting health coverage for contraceptives when it becomes mandatory to cover fertility treatments.  Till then, I'll stay out of these discussions.

My bro had the misfortune of having kids only through medical assistance and insurance didn't cover a single penny, but for a vasectomy, they pay the full amount.  Cover both, or stay out of it.
 
2014-03-26 08:55:53 AM
All this could be settled very quickly if HL just gives up the tax breaks for providing health care and pays the penalty.  They want the tax break for providing health care but at the same time want the power to dictate what does or does not constitute health care.  You can't have it both ways and anyone with a working brain should see why that's a conflict of interest.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-26 09:03:38 AM

Persnickety: All this could be settled very quickly if HL just gives up the tax breaks for providing health care and pays the penalty.  They want the tax break for providing health care but at the same time want the power to dictate what does or does not constitute health care.  You can't have it both ways and anyone with a working brain should see why that's a conflict of interest.

[i.imgur.com image 843x403]


Brings to mind the Death Star discussion from Clerks.  Picking a job can be related to ones politics.  "They knew the risk when they took the job."  "The money was right, but it was just too risky."

I know a couple Hobby Lobby employees, and they are very comfortable with the views of their company.  If that's what they want, so be it.
 
2014-03-26 09:10:49 AM

fusillade762: Theaetetus: DamnYankees: Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to believe this is a case about abortion.

Oy. That makes it 5-4.

Ayup. The old white guys will have their way, as usual.

Yes I said white guys. Scalia's puppet doesn't count.


Nice racism you got there.
 
2014-03-26 09:14:18 AM

kronicfeld: Domestic battery laws violate the religious beliefs of those who practice Sharia.


Invalid comparison. In order for that comparison to be valid Hobby Lobby would actually have to be arguing that they have the right to demand all of their employees have to use contraceptives as a condition of employment because their religion dictated it. That would mean that any pregnancy, even a planned one, would be grounds for dismissal and not be covered under their insurance policy because they clearly didn't use the proper contraceptives which was a condition of their employment.

Hobby Lobby is arguing that they have the right to not participate in what they consider a sin (think of them as conscientious objectors instead if that helps). Trying to say that active participation in domestic violence under Sharia law would be acceptable if Hobby Lobby won is the exact opposite of the argument that they have presented. As an attorney you should know better.
 
2014-03-26 09:18:34 AM

yourmomlovestetris: Pregnancy is NOT a "dangerous medical condition"


Know how I know you've never had life-threatening complications after delivering your stillborn baby?

Pregnancy is inherently high risk for a lot of women, and carries SOME risk for everyone. People have pointed out that there are a number of benefits to using birth control besides contraception. But there are also plenty of women who have a major interest in preventing pregnancy (hence the "preventative" aspect) for health reasons of their own, or because they know they have low chances for a live birth and don't want to go through the physical and emotional ordeal of a second or third trimester pregnancy loss. Try having two unexplained stillbirths in just over a year, when you're happily married and actually WANT to have a child, and then tell me I can't use any goddamn form of birth control I want.  This is preventative care, and for some of us, it's one of the most important things our health insurance covers.

As far as I'm concerned, there should be more focus on the fact that the whole basis of this lawsuit is bullshiat. They don't want their company's insurance to cover abortifacients? Good news: IUDs and Plan B are not abortifacients. Problem solved. We're done here.
 
2014-03-26 09:21:55 AM

Theaetetus: DamnYankees: Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to believe this is a case about abortion.

Oy. That makes it 5-4.


Hobby Lobby's argument the whole time is that they believe hormonal birth control has abortifacient elements. Estrogen and progestogen have been shown to affect the status of the endometrium, and as a result theoretically a fertilized egg might have a more difficult time implanting in a woman on HBC than a woman who otherwise isn't. Granted, no study has been able to confirm or reject this theory yet because HBC has proven to be so effective at preventing ovulation that studies can't find any signs of embryos being discharged, but the fact that it is theoretically possible is why most non-Catholic Christian who opposed HBC do.

But you're right: if Kennedy is convinced that the unproven concern for abortifacient properties of HBC is synonymous with abortion, the law already allows exceptions for abortion coverage and would give the courts an out (since abortion coverage is elective) rather than enshrine corporate religious rights. Sure the right wing of the court will push for that, but it might be the only agreement they can all come to.
 
2014-03-26 09:26:56 AM

EnderX: Well that article wasn't slant much Left............NOT!


If you're wondering why nobody takes your opinions seriously, it's because you have the writing skills of an intellectually challenged third grader.
 
2014-03-26 09:27:26 AM

Persnickety: All this could be settled very quickly if HL just gives up the tax breaks for providing health care and pays the penalty


Because their employees shouldn't be penalized by not having any health insurance coverage provided by Hobby Lobby just because of one small provision in the ACA that they object to for religious reasons. If any company has to pay the penalty I can guarantee that they are not going to provide any coverage at all in order to offset the penalty cost. Alternatively they may decide to cut full time workers down to 28 hr per week part time employees and not pay the penalty (or health insurance premiums at all for that matter) at all. Neither one of those options are beneficial to the Hobby Lobby employees is it? Why do you hate the hard working employees of Hobby Lobby so much that you would deny them something like employer sponsored health care benefits or a living wage?
 
2014-03-26 09:34:03 AM

hooligan sidekick: Try having two unexplained stillbirths in just over a year, when you're happily married and actually WANT to have a child, and then tell me I can't use any goddamn form of birth control I want.


I'm sorry for your losses. That being said Hobby Lobby is not saying that any of their employees are forbidden from using contraceptives of any type. They are saying that they don't want to pay for them because their religion says that intentionally preventing pregnancy by artificial means is against their religion and that they would be committing a sin by actively facilitating their use. Again, not unlike conscientious objectors who are allowed to not participate fighting in wars because their religion considers it to be murder.
 
2014-03-26 09:39:42 AM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: EnderX: Russ1642: The problem here isn't that Hobby Lobby is complaining about providing health coverage. The problem is a system where your employer has anything whatsoever to do with your general health coverage.

Health coverage IS a benefit that a company's offers you to entice you to except accept their job offer.

I'm guessing that you aren't employed as an editor or copywriter.  His point, which seems to have escaped you, is that health coverage should be universal rather than a benefit for (some of) the employed.  That kind of system seems to work for every other first world country.  And many second and third worlds as well.


Thx for the spelling correction, I wish I was like you and never made a spelling mistake in my life. You are quite the special person. You seemed to have missed my point, health care is a benefit or a bonus that a employer offers to you. The government should not be forcing a business to give its employee's health care. Yeah other countries are great, maybe you should read the WSJ article on the failing health system in Europe.
 
2014-03-26 10:08:01 AM

La Maudite: EnderX


It is apparent by reading the article that the writer was unable to mask their agenda and the piece presented itself as a opinion piece rather than a news one.

I'm a gifted second grader by the way.
 
2014-03-26 10:16:07 AM

CanisNoir: Trid_Kicker: m00: The real problem is that corporations were ever considered people. This is just a natural extension of that notion. This isn't going to go away. Corporations are going to fight for more and more rights as people, even as real people get those same rights stripped away. I think it's better to lose this battle and win the war, because maybe if Hobby Lobby wins voters will force an action.

No.  Voters cannot influence the Supreme Court.

If Hobby Lobby wins, voters are powerless until a contradictory case emerges, is propagated all the way up to the Supreme Court, and is decided in such a way as to overturn the previous decision.

A very lengthy, chancy, and tall order.  The term "frightening" comes to mind.

What, pray tell, is so "frightening" about it?


If the bolded section doesn't frighten the piss out of you, I have to suspect you're really a corporation yourself, and not a real person...

/How long until they get the right to vote?
//Or run for office? There are plenty of corps older than 35, so they should be eligible for the presidency, too!
 
2014-03-26 10:16:16 AM

DamnYankees: CanisNoir: Why should the government force a family to finance what they and their provable religious beliefs consider murder?

I don't know - why do we force people to finance our military and the apparatus of administering death penalty? Should we be able to opt out of those things as well?


I was strongly opposed to the first invasion of Iraq, but the government forced me to finance it.  I have a provable religious belief against murder.  Where was my religious freedom back in 1991?
 
2014-03-26 10:18:21 AM

Dwight_Yeast: gadian: For anyone genuinely unclear on the subject, neither the IUD or Plan B cause abortions.  The IUD does require doctor approval and insertion.  This alone makes it a medical device worthy of insurance coverage.

  I'm not really sure if Plan B has been liberated from behind the pharmacy glass or not, but I feel it should be since it does not require a prescription - just like everything they keep back there that doesn't require a prescription, like the good decongestant.

Keeping the "Plan B" pills behind the counter was something the Religious Right forced the FDA into when they accounted they were going to make it non-perscription.


Shame is a powerful deterrent and a favored weapon of the religious.
 
2014-03-26 10:19:05 AM

CanisNoir: DamnYankees: CanisNoir: Apples and oranges. For you to have a point we would need a single payer system.
 How is that distinction important in determining constitutional or statutory compliance? I agree with you that it is 2 different things, but why does that difference matter?
"Pay me 5 bucks so I can hire than hitman" v. "pay that hitman 5 dollars" seem like two morally identical directives to me.

No the difference is that the military and criminal justice system are paid through a general tax where elected representatives decide how to spemd it. Want to opt out? Elect someone who shares your views. You have recourse.
This is the government forcing one private entity to pay another private entity specifically for a service one side considers murder. Vastly different scenarios.


Nope.  They're not.
 
2014-03-26 10:42:45 AM

Dwight_Yeast: debug: Waht is your reason for condoms to not be covered? It probably wouldn't raise your premimum at all if they were. Not sure what the big problem is.

Again: why shouldn't aspirin be covered?


I think that he's terrified that the wimmins are getting something that men are not.

It's so not fair!
 
2014-03-26 10:44:34 AM

Dwight_Yeast: why is it that some people like yourself always follow abortion with "on demand"? What does that phrase mean?


Oooooo oooooo I know.

It means abortion without the requisite slut-shaming.
 
2014-03-26 10:45:30 AM

Graffito: Dwight_Yeast: why is it that some people like yourself always follow abortion with "on demand"? What does that phrase mean?

Oooooo oooooo I know.

It means abortion without the requisite slut-shaming.


Or vaginal wand rape.
 
2014-03-26 11:51:03 AM

DamnYankees: Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to believe this is a case about abortion.


It's not? (at least partially?)

The three libbiest lib female justices to serve did this? Inconceivable!!
 
2014-03-26 11:51:43 AM

fusillade762: Theaetetus: DamnYankees: Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to believe this is a case about abortion.

Oy. That makes it 5-4.

Ayup. The old white guys will have their way, as usual.

Yes I said white guys. Scalia's puppet doesn't count.


You racist...
 
2014-03-26 12:20:41 PM

CanisNoir: To make it even easier for you to see your error, I'll buy into your false equivalency and point out that with both the military and criminal justice system, the government has an easily provable compelling interest. In this case, not so much due to the large number of exemptions already allowed.


Are you claiming that now the government needs to establish a compelling interest for literally everything they do? That's the only takeaway I can gather from this assertion.
 
2014-03-26 12:54:57 PM

ciberido: DamnYankees: CanisNoir: Why should the government force a family to finance what they and their provable religious beliefs consider murder?

I don't know - why do we force people to finance our military and the apparatus of administering death penalty? Should we be able to opt out of those things as well?

I was strongly opposed to the first invasion of Iraq, but the government forced me to finance it.  I have a provable religious belief against murder.  Where was my religious freedom back in 1991?


Are you a corporation?  No?

Well, there's your problem, citizen.
 
2014-03-26 12:56:58 PM

EnderX: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: EnderX: Russ1642: The problem here isn't that Hobby Lobby is complaining about providing health coverage. The problem is a system where your employer has anything whatsoever to do with your general health coverage.

Health coverage IS a benefit that a company's offers you to entice you to except accept their job offer.

I'm guessing that you aren't employed as an editor or copywriter.  His point, which seems to have escaped you, is that health coverage should be universal rather than a benefit for (some of) the employed.  That kind of system seems to work for every other first world country.  And many second and third worlds as well.

Thx for the spelling correction, I wish I was like you and never made a spelling mistake in my life. You are quite the special person. You seemed to have missed my point, health care is a benefit or a bonus that a employer offers to you. The government should not be forcing a business to give its employee's health care. Yeah other countries are great, maybe you should read the WSJ article on the failing health system in Europe.



This is why you're coded red.  The WSJ used to be a good paper; now it's just a Murdoch rag.

Stick to FreeRepublic, you'll be happier there.
 
2014-03-26 01:00:03 PM

yourmomlovestetris: Lot of idiocy in this thread. You people DO know that Hobby Lobby DOES cover the pill--the only thing it doesn't cover are IUDs and the Morning After Pill (both of which they consider abortifacients).  Birth control pills used for hormone regulation and other medical problems are covered by the company. No company, as far as I know is required to pay for abortions. (Although there are plenty of people in this forum who entitledly caterwaul that the government refusing to pay for abortion on demand is some kind of Crime Against Women. ) I say again: idiocy.

Pregnancy is NOT a "dangerous medical condition"


It sure as hell can be.  I know women who are only alive BECAUSE OF late-term abortion.  They didn't WANT abortions...they HAD to have them.  And they've gone on to have healthy kids afterwards.

Take your fundy BS back to the Bronze Age.
 
2014-03-26 01:10:33 PM

CanisNoir: Bane of Broone: CanisNoir: The_Fuzz: Dear America, your priorities are messed the Fark up.  I can't believe this is even an issue.

Or how about they choose one of the 20 other forms of contraception that HL will gladly cover and keep having sex like normal.

The amount of low information voters in here is astounding. At the very least watch some darn PBS or listen to NPR so you know what your talking about.

You think the pill is only about contraception and you're calling other people "low information"? 

I read that correctly, right?

The Pill isn't involved in this case and will still be covered. Thanks for proving my point.


It is in the other case the SC is hearing, Conestoga:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/24/heres-what -y ou-need-to-know-about-the-hobby-lobby-case/
 
2014-03-26 01:39:15 PM

Radioactive Ass: Persnickety: All this could be settled very quickly if HL just gives up the tax breaks for providing health care and pays the penalty

Because their employees shouldn't be penalized by not having any health insurance coverage provided by Hobby Lobby just because of one small provision in the ACA that they object to for religious reasons.


"Gee officer, I only broke one small law out of a whole bunch.  Why are you being so mean and arresting me?  Oh, and my religion is AOK with me doing it so that makes you an evil oppressor."


If any company has to pay the penalty I can guarantee that they are not going to provide any coverage at all in order to offset the penalty cost. Alternatively they may decide to cut full time workers down to 28 hr per week part time employees and not pay the penalty (or health insurance premiums at all for that matter) at all. Neither one of those options are beneficial to the Hobby Lobby employees is it? Why do you hate the hard working employees of Hobby Lobby so much that you would deny them something like employer sponsored health care benefits or a living wage?

Yay!  False dichotomy.  I like logical fallacies that are easy to spot and don't have big Latin names that I can never remember.  Your guarantee in this instance is, of course, worthless and obviously there are more than two possibilities including what I would consider to be the most likely: they'll obey the law.  The owners still want to make a lot of money and at the end of the day filthy lucre trumps religious dogma.
 
m00
2014-03-26 01:42:50 PM

Trid_Kicker: No. Voters cannot influence the Supreme Court.


Sure they can. There are always Congressional remedies to Supreme Court rulings.

Somewhat ironically, the notion of corporate personhood comes from an interpretation of the word "person" in the 14th amendment. I say it's ironic because if Congress ever repeals the 14th amendment (which Republicans are pushing for) then it removes the legal underpinning by which corporations are considered people.

Ofc, I'm not saying repeal the 14th. But the point is that if Congress really wanted to do something about corporate personhood they could. Even if they didn't want to go so far as modifying the 14th amendment, they could pass laws that redefine the legal status of a corporation so that a corporation is not defined in such a way that triggers 14th amendment protection.

But they won't. Not because it's impossible, but because politicians work for lobbyists who work for corporations.
 
2014-03-26 02:37:30 PM

trappedspirit: [i141.photobucket.com image 591x800]

You know you want her to swing your gavel.


Yes.  Yes, I do.
 
2014-03-26 02:52:48 PM

Radioactive Ass: hooligan sidekick: Try having two unexplained stillbirths in just over a year, when you're happily married and actually WANT to have a child, and then tell me I can't use any goddamn form of birth control I want.

I'm sorry for your losses. That being said Hobby Lobby is not saying that any of their employees are forbidden from using contraceptives of any type. They are saying that they don't want to pay for them because their religion says that intentionally preventing pregnancy by artificial means is against their religion and that they would be committing a sin by actively facilitating their use. Again, not unlike conscientious objectors who are allowed to not participate fighting in wars because their religion considers it to be murder.


A more accurate example would be conscientious objectors being allowed to not pay taxes, because supporting the United States government is facilitating military conflict.

... But of course, such people  do have to pay taxes.
 
2014-03-26 04:32:40 PM

DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

Last Man on Earth: Ostensibly, it's because Smith was decided pre-RFRA.


Assorted anti-Scalia snark aside, that does seem to be his position -- and perhaps that of several of the left-leaning justices.

But I'm not even a law student, and was skimming the oral argument transcript really fast last night.
 
2014-03-26 05:40:17 PM

nucrash: Pray as you want, practice as you want, just don't force me to endure your simpleminded ness.


So many of THESE^^^

What the bible-thumpers and Jesus freaks can't wrap their tiny little heads around is the concept of leaving other people alone to live their lives the way they see fit as long as those ways harm no one else. Pray to whomever or whatever you like, any time you like, any way you like, from any book you like. If you don't like teh gay, then don't be gay. If you don't like abortions, don't get one. All right with me. Just don't try to force me to do it.
 
2014-03-26 05:55:56 PM
As soon as a whole corporation and/or thier CEOs get executed for murder I will consider them people.
 
2014-03-26 06:28:59 PM

Hickory-smoked: Radioactive Ass: hooligan sidekick: Try having two unexplained stillbirths in just over a year, when you're happily married and actually WANT to have a child, and then tell me I can't use any goddamn form of birth control I want.

I'm sorry for your losses. That being said Hobby Lobby is not saying that any of their employees are forbidden from using contraceptives of any type. They are saying that they don't want to pay for them because their religion says that intentionally preventing pregnancy by artificial means is against their religion and that they would be committing a sin by actively facilitating their use. Again, not unlike conscientious objectors who are allowed to not participate fighting in wars because their religion considers it to be murder.

A more accurate example would be conscientious objectors being allowed to not pay taxes, because supporting the United States government is facilitating military conflict.

... But of course, such people  do have to pay taxes.


Yup.  People who refuse to pay taxes or follow the law for whatever reason have to accept the consequences of their non-compliance: usually fines and jail time.

And conscientious objectors who object to fighting are not simply told to go home.  They still have to serve, often in dangerous jobs like front line medics or corpsmen.
 
2014-03-26 10:15:53 PM

Animatronik: Alicious: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

Uh huh, and contraception that is used to treat a medical condition would fall where in your explanation of how it works"?

Contraception used to treat a medical condition should be covered like any other medicine.

Pregancy is not a disease that need be prevented at all costs.


If you are a women who has been advised that a pregnancy can endanger your life or has a medical condition in which a pregnancy could not go to full term, pregnancy sure as hell is a disease that needs to be prevented at all costs.
 
Displayed 251 of 251 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report