Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Cool, Hobby Lobby, Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, emergency contraception, Paul Clement, Supreme Court  
•       •       •

11492 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2014 at 10:31 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-25 11:03:11 PM  
12 votes:
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 11:26:39 PM  
10 votes:
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 10:55:27 PM  
10 votes:
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 09:28:38 PM  
10 votes:
The First Amendment doesn't only protect your religion from the government.  It also protects the government from your religion.
2014-03-25 11:06:35 PM  
9 votes:
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 10:46:05 PM  
8 votes:
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 11:39:31 PM  
6 votes:

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 11:28:27 PM  
5 votes:

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 11:18:07 PM  
5 votes:

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 11:10:42 PM  
5 votes:

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 08:19:04 PM  
5 votes:

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.
jbc [TotalFark]
2014-03-25 08:04:49 PM  
5 votes:

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?
2014-03-26 04:16:05 AM  
4 votes:

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.
2014-03-25 11:33:35 PM  
4 votes:
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 11:28:02 PM  
4 votes:

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 11:11:49 PM  
4 votes:

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 11:03:26 PM  
4 votes:
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 10:43:24 PM  
4 votes:

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 07:09:45 PM  
4 votes:
Sweet. Can't wait to found my Sharia-based law firm.
2014-03-26 08:55:53 AM  
3 votes:
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.comView Full Size
2014-03-25 11:45:14 PM  
3 votes:
Dear America, your priorities are messed the Fark up.  I can't believe this is even an issue.
2014-03-25 11:31:51 PM  
3 votes:

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 11:24:03 PM  
3 votes:

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 11:23:48 PM  
3 votes:

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 11:18:17 PM  
3 votes:

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 11:09:25 PM  
3 votes:

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 10:55:25 PM  
3 votes:
I hope Hobby Lobby wins. There, I said it.
2014-03-25 10:35:35 PM  
3 votes:
So tired of special rights for religion...
2014-03-26 03:13:30 AM  
2 votes:

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 01:53:16 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:20:02 AM  
2 votes:
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 12:00:14 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2014-03-25 11:57:27 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:54:09 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:47:27 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:46:15 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:44:24 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:38:32 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:31:36 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:21:41 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:12:15 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:09:00 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:06:05 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:59:55 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:46:53 PM  
2 votes:
Baseball, cold showers. Margret Thatcher naked on a cold day.
2014-03-25 10:43:34 PM  
2 votes:
Well that article wasn't slant much Left............NOT!
2014-03-25 10:42:15 PM  
2 votes:
Roberts court = worst in history.
2014-03-25 07:32:05 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:40:13 PM  
2 votes:
Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to believe this is a case about abortion.

24.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
2014-03-26 05:40:17 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:45:30 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:42:45 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:19:05 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:16:16 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:39:42 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:34:03 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:26:56 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:18:34 AM  
1 vote:

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 08:54:24 AM  
1 vote:
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 08:53:43 AM  
1 vote:

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 08:30:14 AM  
1 vote:

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 08:18:13 AM  
1 vote:

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 08:13:01 AM  
1 vote:

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 08:07:36 AM  
1 vote:
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 07:49:38 AM  
1 vote:
Cool that people are forced to violate their religious beliefs, because they are christian?

How low liberals have sunk.
2014-03-26 07:29:47 AM  
1 vote:

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 07:11:56 AM  
1 vote:
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 05:15:23 AM  
1 vote:
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 02:14:31 AM  
1 vote:

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 02:02:26 AM  
1 vote:

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 01:50:45 AM  
1 vote:

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 01:44:32 AM  
1 vote:

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 01:34:17 AM  
1 vote:

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 01:13:53 AM  
1 vote:

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.comView Full Size


You just keep shiattin' all over yourself, don't ya Animatronik?
2014-03-26 01:12:14 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:53:21 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:50:43 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:44:50 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:44:00 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:43:03 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:42:39 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:39:58 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:36:52 AM  
1 vote:
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 12:33:57 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:33:23 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:29:46 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:29:18 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:24:43 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:23:43 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:18:03 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:17:38 AM  
1 vote:

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.comView Full Size
2014-03-26 12:12:28 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:10:51 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:09:55 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:04:54 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:03:01 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:02:51 AM  
1 vote:

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.
m00
2014-03-26 12:00:42 AM  
1 vote:
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.
2014-03-25 11:58:58 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:52:42 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:50:19 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:49:19 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:47:46 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:42:51 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:39:37 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:38:34 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:35:31 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:33:37 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:32:37 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:31:20 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:26:33 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:18:01 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:13:58 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:13:22 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:10:16 PM  
1 vote:
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 11:00:38 PM  
1 vote:
Politics? In my Main tab? It's more likely than you think...

/blech
2014-03-25 10:58:46 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:57:47 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:52:16 PM  
1 vote:
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 10:46:40 PM  
1 vote:
I love how the writer knows what Scalia is thinking and tells everyone so they won't respect anything he says.
2014-03-25 10:46:21 PM  
1 vote:

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 09:36:55 PM  
1 vote:

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 08:15:01 PM  
1 vote:

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 07:54:49 PM  
1 vote:
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?
 
Displayed 124 of 124 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report