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.

(Life News)   After SCOTUS says that corporations can't be forced to violate their religious beliefs with Obamacare mandates, Obama decides to go after religious Non-Profits for not going along with the same mandates   (lifenews.com) divider line 138
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

2381 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Aug 2014 at 9:48 AM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-24 08:33:44 AM  
How dare he make health care between the patient and their doctor. Doesn't Obama know all procedures and medicine should be cleared by your employer as well? Except of course, viagra and cialis. Those are different.

I do hope these people keep pushing though, it will lead to single payer faster
 
2014-08-24 09:04:17 AM  
Non-profits are people too, my friend.
 
2014-08-24 09:48:09 AM  
Tax these crazys.
 
2014-08-24 09:54:35 AM  
The upshot of the new rules? As Arina Grossu, Director for the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, tells LifeNews, it's "the threat of crippling fines on non-profits who stand up for their freedom of conscience."

i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-08-24 09:58:56 AM  

quatchi: The upshot of the new rules? As Arina Grossu, Director for the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, tells LifeNews, it's "the threat of crippling fines on non-profits who stand up for their freedom of conscience."

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]


Wait... crippling fines stemming from having to send HHS a form?

WTF am I reading?
 
2014-08-24 09:59:42 AM  
Go piss up a rope fundies.
 
2014-08-24 10:00:29 AM  

Zagloba: quatchi: The upshot of the new rules? As Arina Grossu, Director for the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, tells LifeNews, it's "the threat of crippling fines on non-profits who stand up for their freedom of conscience."

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]

Wait... crippling fines stemming from having to send HHS a form?

WTF am I reading?


Religious types aren't normally known for their reasoning abilities.
 
2014-08-24 10:03:12 AM  

Zagloba: quatchi: The upshot of the new rules? As Arina Grossu, Director for the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, tells LifeNews, it's "the threat of crippling fines on non-profits who stand up for their freedom of conscience."

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]

Wait... crippling fines stemming from having to send HHS a form?

WTF am I reading?


Yes you have to provide a written reason as to why you want an exemption. The horror.
 
2014-08-24 10:15:43 AM  
That case should be a reason to never try to compromise public goods with the fundie crowd. The administration offered a real work-around for specialty cases like the nuns and it was used as precedent for a lawsuit.

Hindsight being 20/20, there's a decent chance the case doesn't get traction if you can point to other religious groups not getting an exemption. "Sorry sister, we understand you don't need these pills and that's wonderful you made the choice. But your insurance must cover it."

Never compromise with the Jesus freaks.
 
2014-08-24 10:17:06 AM  
No, the Supreme Court said a law already written disallowed that. So here's the fix.

So weird these folks either do one of two things; complain about people having kids to get more welfare, or that life is sacred (until birth). If you complain about the first, you'd think you'd be all for this. The insurance companies sure are.
 
2014-08-24 10:18:17 AM  
LifeNews?

[stoppedreadingrightthere.jpg]
 
2014-08-24 10:21:01 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: How dare he make health care between the patient and their doctor. Doesn't Obama know all procedures and medicine should be cleared by your employer as well? Except of course, viagra and cialis. Those are different.

I do hope these people keep pushing though, it will lead to single payer faster


I agree that healthcare decisions should be between a patient and his or her doctor.  So please stop including my wallet in the transaction.
 
2014-08-24 10:22:42 AM  
If it's "closely held", shouldn't the owners lose the limited liability part?
 
2014-08-24 10:24:15 AM  
These charities want to continue following their faith. They want to focus on ministry-such as sharing their faith and serving the poor-without worrying about the threat of massive IRS penalties,"

Donate big money to Obama and you too can be exempt.
 
2014-08-24 10:26:13 AM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: That case should be a reason to never try to compromise public goods with the fundie crowd. The administration offered a real work-around for specialty cases like the nuns and it was used as precedent for a lawsuit.

Hindsight being 20/20, there's a decent chance the case doesn't get traction if you can point to other religious groups not getting an exemption. "Sorry sister, we understand you don't need these pills and that's wonderful you made the choice. But your insurance must cover it."

Never compromise with the Jesus freaks.


izquotes.com
 
2014-08-24 10:26:26 AM  
Your blog sucks.
 
2014-08-24 10:26:39 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-08-24 10:26:43 AM  
CMS Factsheet.

Why, yes, this is manufactured outrage. What gave you that idea?
 
2014-08-24 10:30:09 AM  

rzrwiresunrise: CMS Factsheet.

Why, yes, this is manufactured outrage. What gave you that idea?


Any 'News' site with the word 'Life' in it is suspect.
 
2014-08-24 10:31:04 AM  
Reading that article makes my head hurt.
 
2014-08-24 10:31:24 AM  
MFAWG:

[izquotes.com image 850x400]

Judges would have also accepted the "You can't compromise with those people; I've tried" quote.
 
2014-08-24 10:31:59 AM  

netcentric: [i.imgur.com image 249x320]


Yup.  He sure botched this one:

media.syracuse.com
 
2014-08-24 10:32:34 AM  
cmsimg.indystar.com
 
2014-08-24 10:33:47 AM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: MFAWG:

[izquotes.com image 850x400]

Judges would have also accepted the "You can't compromise with those people; I've tried" quote.


I think this one is more on point to where we are right now. Right wing, secular politics is destroying Christianity.
 
2014-08-24 10:34:43 AM  
I read another, more informative article that detailed how this move by Obama is calling the Supreme Court's bluff and forcing them to rule definitely one way or another.  The Supreme Court left a lot of wiggle room in their rulings that basically said it was Obama's fault for not writing the regulations properly, so this is Obama's response.  It conforms exactly with SCOTUS' "suggestions", so SCOTUS now either has to contradict themselves (which they've already done with these rulings) or give Obama the victory.
 
2014-08-24 10:37:29 AM  

Cataholic: Peter von Nostrand: How dare he make health care between the patient and their doctor. Doesn't Obama know all procedures and medicine should be cleared by your employer as well? Except of course, viagra and cialis. Those are different.

I do hope these people keep pushing though, it will lead to single payer faster

I agree that healthcare decisions should be between a patient and his or her doctor.  So please stop including my wallet in the transaction.


Really, you don't think your wallet isn't affected when a woman is forced to have an unwanted kid, goes on welfare and collects food stamps? If only they'd wander away and die, life would be so much simpler and your bottom line wouldn't be affected. Galbraith noted that "the modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness," but really, this is no longer the case. The modern conservative now simply revels unapologetically in greed and naked self-interest, without even an an attempt at claiming a moral justification. I suppose it's less hypocritical, but when these people are carted away to the guillotine, I hope they can find solace in the fact that their executioners are only looking after their own bottom lines.
 
2014-08-24 10:41:52 AM  
According to the factsheet, the Obama administration will publish two new regulations relating to the HHS preventive services mandate. One is an interim final rule regarding an additional mechanism for non-profits to provide notification of their objection to the mandate.

This is not something new that Obama is pushing after losing Hobby Lobby.  It's the same rule that's been in place that state "Non-profits must include contraception in their employee's health insurance, unless they object on religious grounds, in which case the government will cover that, but they have to actually notify us that's what they want to do because the CIA hasn't worked all the bugs out of their non-profit mindreading program."

I, for one, find it deliciously ironic that "Christians" are going into court and making the legal argument that telling other people about their religious beliefs violates those religious beliefs.

It is simply another clerical layer to an already existing accounting gimmick that does nothing to protect religious freedom because the employer still remains the legal gateway by which these drugs and services will be provided to their employees

I also find it depressingly business as usual that these "Christians" are objecting, not to the fact that they have to provide contraception, or provide insurance that might be used for contraception, but that someone else might provide insurance that might be used for contraception.  They don't care one piddling shiat about whether or not their religious rights are violated, they're only concerned that one of their slutty employees might be having sex without getting pregnant.

TL:DR: LifeNews is a website so biased as to be about as slightly less credible than AT or Breitbart, which at least spread their lies over a variety of subjects upon which Obama is oppressing them.
 
2014-08-24 10:43:17 AM  
I say we remove the middleman completely.  Your employer IS you doctor.  That way they have every minute detail of your health at their disposal to deny as they see fit.
 
2014-08-24 10:44:01 AM  
"After losing to Hobby Lobby at the Supreme Court in a case about whether certain businesses who object to paying for abortion-causing drugs..."

That's about the point where I looked around the website and realized that I had wandered into a crazy fundy zone. At least they made it clear in the first sentence, and I have learned to read  beforeI click.
 
2014-08-24 10:44:03 AM  
Google suggested "family research council hate group" so there's that. They should stick to selling knives to ISIS.
 
2014-08-24 10:47:25 AM  

MFAWG: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: MFAWG:

[izquotes.com image 850x400]

Judges would have also accepted the "You can't compromise with those people; I've tried" quote.

I think this one is more on point to where we are right now. Right wing, secular politics is destroying Christianity.


I've always wondered, just as a thought experiment, how most of those clowns would react to a real and honest push by society against Christianity. Like, mass burnings of the Bible and registration lists of  believers. Actual Orwellian tactics to suppress one religion.

My own opinion is there'd be a huge wave of "liberated" thinkers who just started realizing that secular life is the greatest thing since sliced bread. People who previously screamed the loudest about oppression would give up and back away quietly because they didn't believe; it was fashionable to be an asshat.

Ironic, since there are a whole bunch of red words in a story about spreading seed.
 
2014-08-24 10:49:05 AM  

Cataholic: Peter von Nostrand: How dare he make health care between the patient and their doctor. Doesn't Obama know all procedures and medicine should be cleared by your employer as well? Except of course, viagra and cialis. Those are different.

I do hope these people keep pushing though, it will lead to single payer faster

I agree that healthcare decisions should be between a patient and his or her doctor.  So please stop including my wallet in the transaction.


What does this mean? You pay for other people's health care every time you spend money one way or the other. You understand this, correct? Your insurance and health care is not wholly and only paid by you. You get that right?
 
2014-08-24 10:50:31 AM  

Cataholic: Peter von Nostrand: How dare he make health care between the patient and their doctor. Doesn't Obama know all procedures and medicine should be cleared by your employer as well? Except of course, viagra and cialis. Those are different.

I do hope these people keep pushing though, it will lead to single payer faster

I agree that healthcare decisions should be between a patient and his or her doctor.  So please stop including my wallet in the transaction.


Tbe amount of your premium spent on a woman's birth control wouldn't even beat back one sperm. So go enjoy your penis pills and wonder how many women paid for you to have your happy moment.
 
2014-08-24 10:52:18 AM  

MFAWG: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: That case should be a reason to never try to compromise public goods with the fundie crowd. The administration offered a real work-around for specialty cases like the nuns and it was used as precedent for a lawsuit.

Hindsight being 20/20, there's a decent chance the case doesn't get traction if you can point to other religious groups not getting an exemption. "Sorry sister, we understand you don't need these pills and that's wonderful you made the choice. But your insurance must cover it."

Never compromise with the Jesus freaks.

[izquotes.com image 850x400]


That quote is horribly wrong. In the sense that religion helps forms many peoples underlying philosophies, you cannot separate religion from public policy. Might as well say keep secular humanism out of public policy. It's a ludicrous position, especially considering that the majority of the citizens in this *representative* republic are religious.
 
2014-08-24 10:52:41 AM  
BTW if they're so strong in their faith why don't they just refuse to cover and trust Jeebus to cover the fine?
 
2014-08-24 10:53:47 AM  
Showing utter contempt for Supreme Court decisions:

A.  Will not achieve the intended objective.

B. Will give Republicans more fodder leading up to the next elections.
 
2014-08-24 10:55:15 AM  
Insurance must pay for free birth control? Really? Who the hell can't afford to spend $9 on a month supply of the pill .. give up two lattes for a month filled with worry free orgasms ... you can't even rent a hooker for that
 
2014-08-24 10:55:33 AM  

Animatronik: Showing utter contempt for Supreme Court decisions:

A.  Will not achieve the intended objective.

B. Will give Republicans more fodder leading up to the next elections.


Having to fill out a form is indeed utter contempt.  Derp!
 
2014-08-24 10:55:36 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-08-24 10:57:01 AM  

unreasonable ass: free birth control


Pssst, you pay for it through your policy.  It's also cheaper than pregnancy and saves the insurance company money.
 
2014-08-24 11:02:58 AM  

CanisNoir: MFAWG: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: That case should be a reason to never try to compromise public goods with the fundie crowd. The administration offered a real work-around for specialty cases like the nuns and it was used as precedent for a lawsuit.

Hindsight being 20/20, there's a decent chance the case doesn't get traction if you can point to other religious groups not getting an exemption. "Sorry sister, we understand you don't need these pills and that's wonderful you made the choice. But your insurance must cover it."

Never compromise with the Jesus freaks.

[izquotes.com image 850x400]

That quote is horribly wrong. In the sense that religion helps forms many peoples underlying philosophies, you cannot separate religion from public policy. Might as well say keep secular humanism out of public policy. It's a ludicrous position, especially considering that the majority of the citizens in this *representative* republic are religious.


History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
 
2014-08-24 11:03:43 AM  

Fart_Machine: unreasonable ass: free birth control

Pssst, you pay for it through your policy.  It's also cheaper than pregnancy and saves the insurance company money.


So what you are saying in effect is that an insurance company would be justified to force women to take birth control as a requirement to obtaining coverage .. you know, to save money.

Eugenics have already been tried, and unfortunately, public policy that encourages it, is simply eugenics by another name.
 
2014-08-24 11:03:49 AM  
Crippling fines and excessive regulation: good for controlling Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics, oppressive for anyone else.
 
2014-08-24 11:06:24 AM  

Fart_Machine: unreasonable ass: free birth control

Pssst, you pay for it through your policy.  It's also cheaper than pregnancy and saves the insurance company money.


That doesn't sound as good of a deal as paying $75 a year for free oil changes.
 
2014-08-24 11:06:46 AM  

unreasonable ass: So what you are saying in effect is that an insurance company would be justified to force women to take birth control as a requirement to obtaining coverage .. you know, to save money.


No, your reading comprehension sucks.  Coverage =/ forced birth control.  Go derp somewhere else.
 
2014-08-24 11:06:54 AM  
Article did not mention that the contraceptive coverage that hobby lobby is against DOES NOT cause abortions.
 
2014-08-24 11:07:17 AM  

insano: "After losing to Hobby Lobby at the Supreme Court in a case about whether certain businesses who object to paying for abortion-causing drugs..."

That's about the point where I looked around the website and realized that I had wandered into a crazy fundy zone. At least they made it clear in the first sentence, and I have learned to read  beforeI click.


"Life News" didn't give you a clue it would be an anti-abortion propaganda mill?

"Life" is about as big as red flag as "Family," or "Concerned," or "Patriot."
 
2014-08-24 11:07:19 AM  

Deathfrogg: CanisNoir: MFAWG: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: That case should be a reason to never try to compromise public goods with the fundie crowd. The administration offered a real work-around for specialty cases like the nuns and it was used as precedent for a lawsuit.

Hindsight being 20/20, there's a decent chance the case doesn't get traction if you can point to other religious groups not getting an exemption. "Sorry sister, we understand you don't need these pills and that's wonderful you made the choice. But your insurance must cover it."

Never compromise with the Jesus freaks.

[izquotes.com image 850x400]

That quote is horribly wrong. In the sense that religion helps forms many peoples underlying philosophies, you cannot separate religion from public policy. Might as well say keep secular humanism out of public policy. It's a ludicrous position, especially considering that the majority of the citizens in this *representative* republic are religious.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.


And nobody is claiming the church should run the government, simply stating that telling people to leave their religion out of the voting booth is not only an impossible request but also demonstrates a misunderstanding of the role of religion in an individuals life.
 
2014-08-24 11:08:15 AM  
Lifenews.  We can tell from the name that everything they say is a a lie.

ITT:  Lots of right wing shill wingnuts.
 
2014-08-24 11:08:22 AM  

AnonAmbientLight: Article did not mention that the contraceptive coverage that hobby lobby is against DOES NOT cause abortions.


Nor does it mention that Hobby Lobby has substantial investments in pharmaceutical companies that manufacture birth control drugs and devices.
 
Displayed 50 of 138 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report