3 Lies About Birth Control That Were Just Reinforced By The Hobby Lobby Ruling

[Cigar]

1. Birth control is the same thing as abortion

The entire legal challenge against the Obama administration was based on the fundamental lie that certain types of FDA-approved contraception can end a pregnancy. The plaintiffs in this suit took the unscientific stance that pregnancy begins at fertilization and certain types of contraception, like the morning after pill and IUDs, are “abortion-inducing” because they prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. But according to the legal definition of pregnancy, a woman is not actually considered to be pregnant until a fertilized egg is implanted in her uterine lining — so anything that inhibits ovulation, fertilization, or implantation is defined as birth control. And on top of that, there’s evidence that those types of contraception don’t actually prevent implantation in the first place.


2. Birth control should be separated from other types of medical services

Hobby Lobby opponents have been concerned about the case’s implication for services beyond contraception, pointing out that other companies might cite their religious beliefs to refuse coverage for vaccinations, blood transfusions, or services for transgender individuals. The Court briefly attempted to quell those concerns, specifying that Monday’s decision “concerns only the contraceptive mandate” and shouldn’t be interpreted to apply to other services like vaccines.


3. It’s easier for the government to pay for people’s birth control so that companies don’t have to
In his opinion, Alito suggests that the government could simply “assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers’ religious objections.” That may sound like a reasonable compromise. But in the context of our current insurance system, it doesn’t necessarily make much sense.


And, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg writes in her dissent to Monday’s opinion, the government’s safety net system for affordable contraception can’t necessarily accommodate more women. The Title X program is currently the publicly-funded family planning program that’s supposed to help low-income women afford their reproductive health care. But it’s been plagued with rounds of budget cuts in states across the country — often led by Republican lawmakers who oppose the idea of taxpayer funded birth control — and it’s struggling to provide care for all the women who need help. As a result, unintended pregnancies have become increasingly concentrated among poor women who lack access to birth control.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/06/30/3454815/birth-control-lies-hobby-lobby-ruling/

[Cthulhu]

Blarg. Talking points.

Blarg.

[Polecat]

If they are Catholic they are catholic. Its a lot like being black. Can't help but be what you are.

[keymanjim]

There are two reasons why people have sex. Procreation and recreation.
If you are doing it for procreation then there is no need for contraceptives.
If you are doing it for recreation then the company and/or government has no more obligation to provide you with contraceptives than they do to provide you with a life jacket if you go fishing.

Take some personal responsibility for yourselves before the government does it for you. And, you wont like the way government does it for you.

[Cigar]

Typical GOP Response :laugh:

http://www.barking-moonbat.com/images/uploads/THREE_WISE_MONKS.jpg (http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index.php/weblog/category/Unions-Labor/)

[keymanjim]

Typical GOP Response :laugh:

http://www.barking-moonbat.com/images/uploads/THREE_WISE_MONKS.jpg (http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index.php/weblog/category/Unions-Labor/)
Good, you got what you were expecting.

Glad I could help you understand the facts of life.

[Boris The Animal]

Liberals are butthurt over the SCOTUS bitchslapping of Obama.

[texan]

Nice to see Cigar with some original thoughts. Snicker...

[Boris The Animal]

Nice to see Cigar with some original thoughts. Snicker...Cigar with an original thought would be a gross oxymoron (with emphasis on the "moron") :D

[The Xl]

There are two reasons why people have sex. Procreation and recreation.
If you are doing it for procreation then there is no need for contraceptives.
If you are doing it for recreation then the company and/or government has no more obligation to provide you with contraceptives than they do to provide you with a life jacket if you go fishing.

Take some personal responsibility for yourselves before the government does it for you. And, you wont like the way government does it for you.

This.

[Chris]

1. Birth control is the same thing as abortion

The entire legal challenge against the Obama administration was based on the fundamental lie that certain types of FDA-approved contraception can end a pregnancy. The plaintiffs in this suit took the unscientific stance that pregnancy begins at fertilization and certain types of contraception, like the morning after pill and IUDs, are “abortion-inducing” because they prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. But according to the legal definition of pregnancy, a woman is not actually considered to be pregnant until a fertilized egg is implanted in her uterine lining — so anything that inhibits ovulation, fertilization, or implantation is defined as birth control. And on top of that, there’s evidence that those types of contraception don’t actually prevent implantation in the first place.

Interesting that the argument starts out with it's unscientific but then resorts to legal definitions.

BTW, according to medical science, life begins at conception.

Finally, religious beliefs are, well, just that, beliefs. Matters of faith, not science, not law.


Strike one.

[Chris]

2. Birth control should be separated from other types of medical services

Hobby Lobby opponents have been concerned about the case’s implication for services beyond contraception, pointing out that other companies might cite their religious beliefs to refuse coverage for vaccinations, blood transfusions, or services for transgender individuals. The Court briefly attempted to quell those concerns, specifying that Monday’s decision “concerns only the contraceptive mandate” and shouldn’t be interpreted to apply to other services like vaccines.


You mean the protected right of religious freedom might extend to other areas. OMG!

[Chris]

3. It’s easier for the government to pay for people’s birth control so that companies don’t have to
In his opinion, Alito suggests that the government could simply “assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers’ religious objections.” That may sound like a reasonable compromise. But in the context of our current insurance system, it doesn’t necessarily make much sense.

But that is the law, that religious exemptions must be granted if there are legitimate alternatives. What Alito suggested was one such alternative. It wasn't meant as a compromise. It only needed to make legal sense, and it did. From the ruling:


In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage. The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.

Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.

[Alyosha]

How is it reinforced by the ruling? The ruling is on the First Amendment not birth control.

[Blackrook]

Forcing people to break their own moral conscience is always wrong. I wish liberals had a way to understand that, but apparently they don't give a damn.

[Chris]

How is it reinforced by the ruling? The ruling is on the First Amendment not birth control.

As you've said elsewhere, and I have as well, people don't read the law, the arguments, the rulings. That takes time. They read instead 2 minute synopses in partisan media.

[Blackrook]

I am hoping all the "bad stuff" the liberals are predicting actually come to pass. The Supreme Court has taken a too narrow view of religious liberty in the past, and that needs correcting. The infamous "Peyote case" comes in mind. I remember that there was bipartisan opposition to that ruling when it came out.

[Captain Obvious]

Forcing people to break their own moral conscience is always wrong. I wish liberals had a way to understand that, but apparently they don't give a damn.

Forcing one's morality onto innocent others is equally wrong.

[Alyosha]

Forcing one's morality onto innocent others is equally wrong.

They're not. Unless you can show me where someone is banned from purchasing it on their own.

[Chris]

Forcing one's morality onto innocent others is equally wrong.

Cite the ruling, cap. Show us you can argue logically from facts rather than make things up.

[Captain Obvious]

Cite the ruling, cap. Show us you can argue logically from facts rather than make things up.

It's not in the ruling, Chris.

It's in reality. You should visit for a change.

[Captain Obvious]

They're not. Unless you can show me where someone is banned from purchasing it on their own.

Of course it is. They're being denied a benefit they're otherwise entitled to.

Know what that's called?

[Chris]

It's not in the ruling, Chris.

It's in reality. You should visit for a change.



Your reality, cap, no thanks. It's too full of you, where facts and logic just don't apply.

[Chris]

Of course it is. They're being denied a benefit they're otherwise entitled to.

Know what that's called?



Entitled? How do you come up with that progressive gem?

[Captain Obvious]

Entitled? How do you come up with that progressive gem?

You're suggesting the ACA doesn't provide for certain entitlements?

Back to your graphs and texts pardner, you have work to do!

[Chris]

You're suggesting the ACA doesn't provide for certain entitlements?

Back to your graphs and texts pardner, you have work to do!


Perfect example of you making things up, putting it in other people's mouths, and then arguing with what you made up to begin with.

Unimpressive.

Impressive sidestepping though.

[Captain Obvious]

Perfect example of you making things up, putting it in other people's mouths, and then arguing with what you made up to begin with.

Unimpressive.

Impressive sidestepping though.

If you said that into a mirror then you're spot on.

[Chris]

If you said that into a mirror then you're spot on.

It took you 6 minutes to think that gem up? Give it a rest, cap.

[Captain Obvious]

It took you 6 minutes to think that gem up? Give it a rest, cap.

It's amazing what one can do when they can think on their feet instead of consulting texts and graphs first.

[Chris]

It's amazing what one can do when they can think on their feet instead of consulting texts and graphs first.

Yes, amazing how you can repeat a line used a million times before.

[Captain Obvious]

Yes, amazing how you can repeat a line used a million times before.

You've had that line said to you a million times?

What a shocker!

:biglaugh:

[Redrose]

1. Birth control is the same thing as abortion

The entire legal challenge against the Obama administration was based on the fundamental lie that certain types of FDA-approved contraception can end a pregnancy. The plaintiffs in this suit took the unscientific stance that pregnancy begins at fertilization and certain types of contraception, like the morning after pill and IUDs, are “abortion-inducing” because they prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. But according to the legal definition of pregnancy, a woman is not actually considered to be pregnant until a fertilized egg is implanted in her uterine lining — so anything that inhibits ovulation, fertilization, or implantation is defined as birth control. And on top of that, there’s evidence that those types of contraception don’t actually prevent implantation in the first place.


2. Birth control should be separated from other types of medical services

Hobby Lobby opponents have been concerned about the case’s implication for services beyond contraception, pointing out that other companies might cite their religious beliefs to refuse coverage for vaccinations, blood transfusions, or services for transgender individuals. The Court briefly attempted to quell those concerns, specifying that Monday’s decision “concerns only the contraceptive mandate” and shouldn’t be interpreted to apply to other services like vaccines.


3. It’s easier for the government to pay for people’s birth control so that companies don’t have to
In his opinion, Alito suggests that the government could simply “assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers’ religious objections.” That may sound like a reasonable compromise. But in the context of our current insurance system, it doesn’t necessarily make much sense.


And, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg writes in her dissent to Monday’s opinion, the government’s safety net system for affordable contraception can’t necessarily accommodate more women. The Title X program is currently the publicly-funded family planning program that’s supposed to help low-income women afford their reproductive health care. But it’s been plagued with rounds of budget cuts in states across the country — often led by Republican lawmakers who oppose the idea of taxpayer funded birth control — and it’s struggling to provide care for all the women who need help. As a result, unintended pregnancies have become increasingly concentrated among poor women who lack access to birth control.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/06/30/3454815/birth-control-lies-hobby-lobby-ruling/
I disagree they are lies. A condom can prevent a pregnancy, but NOT terminate a pregnancy like the morning after pill.

Personally I don't care what people do sexually. My argument is I don't want my tax dollars paying for it.
If you want to screw till your ears fall off that's your business. But don't ask me to pay for your birth control and abortions. Keep government out of our bedrooms and wallets. Sex, birth control are private matters, pay for it yourself.

[zelmo1234]

Typical GOP Response :laugh:

http://www.barking-moonbat.com/images/uploads/THREE_WISE_MONKS.jpg (http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index.php/weblog/category/Unions-Labor/)

So you are saying that the government should provide life jackets for my boat?

[zelmo1234]

Forcing one's morality onto innocent others is equally wrong.

Fortunately, the court did not force anyone to change their lifestyle or morality, they just change who is required to pay for birth control

[del]

You've had that line said to you a million times?

What a shocker!

:biglaugh:

:rofl:

unpossible

[Cigar]

So you are saying that the government should provide life jackets for my boat?


Well if I were you, I wouldn't drive in Illinois without a seatbelt :laugh:

[zelmo1234]

Of course it is. They're being denied a benefit they're otherwise entitled to.

Know what that's called?

Why the hell should anyone be entitle to free birth control? and if they want that? we give 290 million dollars to planed parenthood to provide it?

I have to take allergy medicine, the insurance plan does not cover the product that does not make be sick or give me massive headaches?

So should they be forced to pay for that?

[zelmo1234]

You're suggesting the ACA doesn't provide for certain entitlements?

Back to your graphs and texts pardner, you have work to do!

You are suggesting that the ACA trumps the constitution? It does not!

[Captain Obvious]

Why the hell should anyone be entitle to free birth control? and if they want that? we give 290 million dollars to planed parenthood to provide it?

I have to take allergy medicine, the insurance plan does not cover the product that does not make be sick or give me massive headaches?

So should they be forced to pay for that?

Again you're arguing the ACA.

I'm neither supporting or rejecting it, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy and inequality of the carve-out decision made today - and the hypocritical reasoning most are offering in support of it.

That was take 6 I think, not counting the Chrisaster earlier.

[Captain Obvious]

You are suggesting that the ACA trumps the constitution? It does not!

Take 2 - I'm not making any constitutional arguments.

[zelmo1234]

Well if I were you, I wouldn't drive in Illinois without a seatbelt :laugh:

I try not to drive in IL period. The don't reciprocate in CCW laws. so I take the ferry across to WI in the summer and fly in the winter?

[Redrose]

Typical GOP Response :laugh:

http://www.barking-moonbat.com/images/uploads/THREE_WISE_MONKS.jpg (http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index.php/weblog/category/Unions-Labor/)
Obama's family?

[zelmo1234]

Take 2 - I'm not making any constitutional arguments.

But that is what the supreme court does!

[Captain Obvious]

But that is what the supreme court does!

I get that, there's a whole discussion on the constitutionality going on in the other thread.

But that's not my approach in this one.