Hobby Lobby

[midcan5]

It is interesting that a family's right to medical support is blocked in America by religion. Everyone engages in contraception including the religious who deny another that same benefit. Consider the fact humans stop life from forming through various means, if life is a religious goal then only abstinence, as the Catholic Church once taught, should be allowed. If we look closely, are not all means of contraception wrong for surely an ovum is potential life. Is male masturbation not a destruction of potential life. Why only a ban on contraceptives? But then the same corporations, known to our Supreme court as people, pay for Viagra. Rather odd how un-supportive Christian religions can be. Corporations sell to everyone not just the religious. Hobby Lobby will still help the impotent male get a hard-on, but spends enormous amounts of money to deny medicine for women that serves many beneficial purposes. And please stop criticizing other more fundamentalist religions, they are all the same given power, thus the separation of church and state. Society tries to save the untreated sick child do we now let them die because of this religious ruling? Ask Justice Alito.


"Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)? According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, “each one of these cases . . . would have to be evaluated on its own . . . apply[ing] the compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test.” Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision." from second link below


"And here's some more bullshit:


"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs."
But why not? If the government can directly fund access to contraceptives, surely it can also directly fund access to blood transfusions and vaccines. And let us not forget that, by arbitrary judicial fiat, direct government funding would "certainly be less restrictive of [citizens'] religious liberty"! So, y'know, it kinda seems as though this decision does imply "that all insurance mandates [must] necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs."" http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/07/hobby-lobby.html




"In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs. Compelling governmental interests in uniform compliance with the law, and disadvantages that religion-based opt-outs impose on others, hold no sway, the Court decides, at least when there is a “less restrictive alternative.” And such an alternative, the Court suggests, there always will be whenever, in lieu of tolling an enterprise claiming a religion-based exemption, the government, i.e., the general public, can pick up the tab....
[T]he Court forgets that religious organizations exist to serve a community of believers. For-profit corporations do not fit that bill. Moreover, history is not on the Court’s side. Recognition of the discrete characters of “ecclesiastical and lay” corporations dates back to Blackstone, see 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 458 (1765), and was reiterated by this Court centuries before the enactment of the Internal Revenue Code. See Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43, 49 (1815) (describing religious corporations); Trustees of Dartmouth College, 4 Wheat., at 645 (discussing “eleemosynary” corporations, including those “created for the promotion of religion”). To reiterate, "for-profit corporations are different from religious non-profits in that they use labor to make a profit, rather than to perpetuate [the] religious value[s] [shared by a community of believers]."" Justice Ginsburg


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/30/1310551/-In-Hobby-Lobby-Supremes-grant-religious-objection-rights-to-for-profit-corporations#


"The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A).


At issue here are regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), which, as relevant here, requires specified employers’ group health plans to furnish “preventive care and screenings” for women without “any cost sharing requirements,” 42 U. S. C. §300gg–13(a)(4). Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide. Ibid. Nonexempt employers are generally required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. Religious employers, such as churches, are exempt from this contraceptive mandate. HHS has also effectively exempted religious nonprofit organizations with religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services. Under this accommodation, the insurance issuer must exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer’s plan and provide plan participants with separate payments for contraceptive services without imposing any cost-sharing requirements on the employer, its insurance plan, or its employee beneficiaries." http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354

[countryboy]

More lies from the left. Hobby Lobby provides multiple contraceptive drugs in their health plans. The only drugs they have a problem with are the abortifacients like "the morning after" pill. Why does the modern lib always, always, always have to lie to forward their agenda.

[sachem]

A privately held company is refusing to pay for certain contraceptive meds/devices. The SCOTUS has upheld this. Hardly the end of the world. Low income women can most likely get assist for these from the government. Others will just have to pay outta pocket. That's life.

[Matty]

http://www.christianpost.com/news/hobby-lobby-raises-minimum-wage-to-14-for-full-time-employees-94233/

[hanger4]

Nothing's being blocked or denied midcan5. Your strawman holds no straw.

[Captain Obvious]

People who are shitting the bed over the availability of contraceptives, cheaply, $3/month or whatever and then coming out and saying that only the abortion drugs are being held back - those aren't $3/month.

Again, pure hypocrisy and clearly a desperate attempt to smear the issue with lies and distortion.

And I don't get it, I really don't. All I can do is chalk it up to indoctrination basically. It's how fellow partisans think, so it's how I think.

[Chris]

It is interesting that a family's right to medical support is blocked in America by religion....


Yet another agenda driven lie.

:deadhorse:

[Chris]

People who are shitting the bed over the availability of contraceptives, cheaply, $3/month or whatever and then coming out and saying that only the abortion drugs are being held back - those aren't $3/month.

Again, pure hypocrisy and clearly a desperate attempt to smear the issue with lies and distortion.

And I don't get it, I really don't. All I can do is chalk it up to indoctrination basically. It's how fellow partisans think, so it's how I think.


People who see hypocrisy everyone tend to be hypocrites.

[Codename Section]

Oh goody, not another Hobby Lobby thread! It's not like we don't already have 30 of them.

[Captain Obvious]

Oh goody, not another Hobby Lobby thread! It's not like we don't already have 30 of them.
Paperback Writer says you suck for not combining all of them.

[Codename Section]

@Paperback Writer (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=862) says you suck for not combining all of them.

He's probably right. I'll put it in the mod room.

[exotix]

Let's face it ... according to Hobby Lobby and backed up by the same Tea Party of victims who believe *Religious Liberty & Freedom* is to invest 401k's into contraceptives ... well ...

*That makes her a slut ... right ?*

http://i62.tinypic.com/mkwvwp.jpg

[Codename Section]

exotix

drinking coffee may help with that problem of yours.

[hanger4]

Let's face it ... according to Hobby Lobby and backed up by the same Tea Party of victims who believe *Religious Liberty & Freedom* is to invest 401k's into contraceptives ... well ... *That makes her a slut ... right ?*http://i62.tinypic.com/mkwvwp.jpgNo, just makes you a liar.

[Chris]

exotix

drinking coffee may help with that problem of yours.


That could be the problem! Caffeine OD!!

[pragmatic]

People who are shitting the bed over the availability of contraceptives, cheaply, $3/month or whatever and then coming out and saying that only the abortion drugs are being held back - those aren't $3/month.

Again, pure hypocrisy and clearly a desperate attempt to smear the issue with lies and distortion.

And I don't get it, I really don't. All I can do is chalk it up to indoctrination basically. It's how fellow partisans think, so it's how I think.


The reality is that the Democrat party is playing this pretty brilliantly. The continuing drumbeat of the "war on women". And hanging the label on the GOP that conservatives hate women. And the liberals are their noble defenders.

Credit where credit is due. They (Democrats) keep pounding out the accusations....and to some degree they have seen success.

[Captain Obvious]

The reality is that the Democrat party is playing this pretty brilliantly. The continuing drumbeat of the "war on women". And hanging the label on the GOP that conservatives hate women. And the liberals are their noble defenders.

Credit where credit is due. They (Democrats) keep pounding out the accusations....and to some degree they have seen success.

Fascinating concept but I don't have a lack of faith to the degree that this was a partisan driven decision.

[pragmatic]

Fascinating concept but I don't have a lack of faith to the degree that this was a partisan driven decision.

Am not suggesting that at all. Am referring to the way Democrats are exploiting/distorting/sensationalizing the decision that did come down.


I happen to like the current court and believe they do a pretty good job....

[Chris]

The reality is that the Democrat party is playing this pretty brilliantly. The continuing drumbeat of the "war on women". And hanging the label on the GOP that conservatives hate women. And the liberals are their noble defenders.

Credit where credit is due. They (Democrats) keep pounding out the accusations....and to some degree they have seen success.


I've read similar--Sandra Fluke's WaPo editorial on the ruling a case in point--but have also read how it will backfire because the Dem position is essentially conformist intolerant pro-state and anti-liberty.

[Peter1469]

A privately held company is refusing to pay for certain contraceptive meds/devices. The SCOTUS has upheld this. Hardly the end of the world. Low income women can most likely get assist for these from the government. Others will just have to pay outta pocket. That's life.

Hobby Lobby objected to 4 out of 20 methods offered by the insurance company.

The left is spinning the issue to turn this into a war on women.

[Bob]

Hobby Lobby objected to 4 out of 20 methods offered by the insurance company.

The left is spinning the issue to turn this into a war on women.

Exactly right and they make it look like the company is forcing them to go without food.

The pills they do pay for should take care of all their problems.

[Bob]

The reality is that the Democrat party is playing this pretty brilliantly. The continuing drumbeat of the "war on women". And hanging the label on the GOP that conservatives hate women. And the liberals are their noble defenders.

Credit where credit is due. They (Democrats) keep pounding out the accusations....and to some degree they have seen success.

The Democrats are so messed up they will even try to make a court decision into a political issue.

I am so happy I quit being a Democrat.

[Bob]

Let's face it ... according to Hobby Lobby and backed up by the same Tea Party of victims who believe *Religious Liberty & Freedom* is to invest 401k's into contraceptives ... well ...

*That makes her a slut ... right ?*

Damned few people select stocks. Those who do are the rich.

What makes her a slut is not having loyalty to anything but her crotch. @exotix

http://i62.tinypic.com/mkwvwp.jpg

[Chris]

Am not suggesting that at all. Am referring to the way Democrats are exploiting/distorting/sensationalizing the decision that did come down.


I happen to like the current court and believe they do a pretty good job....


And it would have been Reps doing it had the ruling gone the other way. Can't win for losing.

I agree, it's an interesting court with many surprises.

[Bob]

More lies from the left. Hobby Lobby provides multiple contraceptive drugs in their health plans. The only drugs they have a problem with are the abortifacients like "the morning after" pill. Why does the modern lib always, always, always have to lie to forward their agenda.

A few honestly don't know. The way it works, (did for me growing up)
Lib 1 tells a lie to lib 2. Lib 2 trusts #1 and thus also tells the lie. By the time it is proved to be a lie, it has zoomed around earth a dozen times.

Libs goal is to lie. That has to be clearly understood. watch how exotix does it.

[Peter1469]

Exactly right and they make it look like the company is forcing them to go without food.

The pills they do pay for should take care of all their problems.
Or forcing them to go without contraception....

[exotix]

A few honestly don't know. The way it works, (did for me growing up)
Lib 1 tells a lie to lib 2. Lib 2 trusts #1 and thus also tells the lie. By the time it is proved to be a lie, it has zoomed around earth a dozen times.

Libs goal is to lie. That has to be clearly understood. watch how @exotix (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=516) does it.
That's certainly one way to look at it ... another way to look at it is in it's mathematical concept/calculus ... let's take a look at an example .. http://i60.tinypic.com/2nq4npx.gif



The Birfer Coefficient

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/07/07/751052/-certifigate-birfer-calculus#



http://i57.tinypic.com/23rlc7n.png

[Chris]

A few honestly don't know. The way it works, (did for me growing up)
Lib 1 tells a lie to lib 2. Lib 2 trusts #1 and thus also tells the lie. By the time it is proved to be a lie, it has zoomed around earth a dozen times.

Libs goal is to lie. That has to be clearly understood. watch how exotix does it.




watch how exotix does it.

Yep, previous post.

[Bob]

That's certainly one way to look at it ... another way to look at it is in it's mathematical concept/calculus ... let's take a look at an example .. http://i60.tinypic.com/2nq4npx.gif
The Birfer Coefficient

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/07/07/751052/-certifigate-birfer-calculus#



And you can thank Berg, a devoted Democrat for the start of the Birther stuff. Sure is shitty what he did to the Democrats.

http://articles.mcall.com/2014-01-30/news/mc-birther-lawyer-berg-resigns-supreme-court-20140130_1_philip-berg-disciplinary-board-u-s-supreme-court

[Mainecoons]

Or forcing them to go without contraception....

Which it is not. They are not forcing anyone to go without anything. They will not fund abortions, chemical or otherwise. That's the extent of it.

[Peter1469]

Which it is not. They are not forcing anyone to go without anything. They will not fund abortions, chemical or otherwise. That's the extent of it.

I was giving Bob a better analogy. See his last post.

But that one Catholic organization that was on SCOTUS's docket was remanded yesterday. They were objecting to all contraceptives. I assume SCOTUS wants the lower courts to develop the record in light of the Hobby ruling.

[Cigar]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.

The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception.


Discussion by Joan McCarter at Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/01/1310918/-Supreme-Court-clarifies-Yes-Hobby-Lobby-is-about-all-slut-pills



So much for what the internet experts were saying ...

[pragmatic]

Hobby Lobby objected to 4 out of 20 methods offered by the insurance company.

The left is spinning the issue to turn this into a war on women.

And doing it rather successfully....

[Cigar]

Once Again ......... :rollseyes:

SCOTUS confirms that decision applies to all forms of contraception provided by ACA
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.

The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception.


Discussion by Joan McCarter at Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/01/1310918/-Supreme-Court-clarifies-Yes-Hobby-Lobby-is-about-all-slut-pills

[pragmatic]

I was giving Bob a better analogy. See his last post.

But that one Catholic organization that was on SCOTUS's docket was remanded yesterday. They were objecting to all contraceptives. I assume SCOTUS wants the lower courts to develop the record in light of the Hobby ruling.

My impression was that the Majority Opinion went out of their way to not set any significant precedent with this case. They added details in order to narrow the scope of the ruling.

And doing so showed wisdom...

[Chris]

Once Again ......... :rollseyes:

SCOTUS confirms that decision applies to all forms of contraception provided by ACA
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.

The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception.


Discussion by Joan McCarter at Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/01/1310918/-Supreme-Court-clarifies-Yes-Hobby-Lobby-is-about-all-slut-pills


You'd've known that yesterday if you'd've read the ruling.

[pragmatic]

Once Again ......... :rollseyes:

SCOTUS confirms that decision applies to all forms of contraception provided by ACA


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.

The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception.


Discussion by Joan McCarter at Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/01/1310918/-Supreme-Court-clarifies-Yes-Hobby-Lobby-is-about-all-slut-pills

The AP article doesn't cite specifically where any of that information came from. Would like to see some quotes or court documents. Color me cynical....

[hanger4]

You'd've known that yesterday if you'd've read the ruling.Come on now Chris, Cigar don't know nuthin' till his handlers tell im. Kos kids being one of them.

[hanger4]

BTW Cigar the KosKids lied to you again. From your Kos link : ''That argument you keep hearing from the Right, about how Hobby Lobby still offers 16 kinds of birth control that they don't believe is abortion-y, so quit your bitchin' libs? Yeah, well, the Supreme Court punched a holein that one'' that quote Cigar is a lie. HL offered those 16 BC's before ACA.

[Peter1469]

And doing it rather successfully.... They have the MSM on their side.

[Peter1469]

Once Again ......... :rollseyes:

SCOTUS confirms that decision applies to all forms of contraception provided by ACA


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.

The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception.


Discussion by Joan McCarter at Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/01/1310918/-Supreme-Court-clarifies-Yes-Hobby-Lobby-is-about-all-slut-pills

The holding is the legal precedence. This is just SCOTUS saying how they might rule in the future with another case.

[Peter1469]

My impression was that the Majority Opinion went out of their way to not set any significant precedent with this case. They added details in order to narrow the scope of the ruling.

And doing so showed wisdom...

That is what SCOTUS should typically do.

[Mainecoons]

BTW Cigar the KosKids lied to you again. From your Kos link : ''That argument you keep hearing from the Right, about how Hobby Lobby still offers 16 kinds of birth control that they don't believe is abortion-y, so quit your bitchin' libs? Yeah, well, the Supreme Court punched a holein that one'' that quote Cigar is a lie. HL offered those 16 BC's before ACA.

Well, dooh, that was the whole issue, that the ACA and Obama wanted to force them to offer chemical or physical abortion.

Contraception was never the issue here.

Do these people ever read what they write?

LOL

[Mister D]

Obviously, I dismiss the idiocy of mindless partisan like Cigar but I must say that this case has created some strange bed fellows.

[Mainecoons]

This board creates strange bedfellows. Occasionally I'd like to strangle some and no doubt some feel the same towards me but this is far and away the most entertaining and more than occasionally informative board I've ever had the pleasure of posting on.

[Chris]

Obviously, I dismiss the idiocy of mindless partisan like Cigar but I must say that this case has created some strange bed fellows.

Hope they're using contraceptives.

[Redrose]

I like the SCOTUS decision. It will bring us back from the edge of religious oppression. I agree with Alito and of course I disagree with Ginsberg. What people must remember, this ruling does not ban contraceptives, not at all. The spin....lies being told on the lefty news shows is pure distorted partisan rhetoric. Those birth control methods are, and will be, available to all. Planned Parenthood will still provide them to the poor, and some more elaborate methods for a nominal fee.
No one is forcing Muslims to violate their deeply held beliefs. So why do some have a problem with Catholics, defending their beliefs? If you don't like the way a company operates, don't apply there. Our Constitution protects our religious freedom and prevents the government from mandating any religious restrictions on us. Either forcing us to do or not do something. Remember it's freedom of religion not freedom from religion. The Sandra Flukes of the country can still get their birth control, but this ruling says your employer is not obligated to provide all forms of it. Employers don't pay your rent, or electric, or phone, water and trash, or cable or car payment, or elective surgery (boob and nose jobs, etc.), or your liquor bill or pot expenses, so why would any normal, clear thinking person expect something as private as birth control, in all forms, be covered by the employer? What would they demand next? Paying for tattoo removal?

Remember, if the government gives you everything, they can also take everything from you.

[hanger4]

Why post this twice Cigar ?? http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/28116-Hobby-Lobby?p=675081#post675081 . Didn't take enough of a beating the first time.

[Chris]

Why post this twice Cigar ?? http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/28116-Hobby-Lobby?p=675081#post675081 . Didn't take enough of a beating the first time.


He's paid by the post.

[Mainecoons]

Fact remains that Hobby Lobby already covered contraception and clearly had no intention of changing that. What they sued over was being forced to provide abortion.

Try again Cigar.

[del]

The Democrats are so messed up they will even try to make a court decision into a political issue.

I am so happy I quit being a Democrat.

roe v wade

i bet the democrats are pretty happy too, booby

[Chris]

roe v wade

i bet the democrats are pretty happy too, booby


Good example of judicial activism.

[del]

They have the MSM on their side.

:rolleyes:

[Cigar]

Good example of judicial activism.


When 88% of North America is in favor on NOT overturning it ... you don't have to worry about judicial activism :laugh:

[del]

Good example of judicial activism.

judicial activism = ruling with which one disagrees

[Peter1469]

If the United States handled the abortion issue through legislation like most of the advanced world, it wouldn't be such a contentious issue. It isn't in Europe, even in places that severely limit it.

[del]

i think after 40 years it might be time to get the fuck over it

if you think it's wrong, don't have one

[Chris]

judicial activism = ruling with which one disagrees


Judicial activism is when the court oversteps its constitutional boundaries and creates law. In that case is was the invention of a penumbral right to privacy.

[del]

Judicial activism is when the court oversteps its constitutional boundaries and creates law. In that case is was the invention of a penumbral right to privacy.

yeah, whatever

[Chris]

If the United States handled the abortion issue through legislation like most of the advanced world, it wouldn't be such a contentious issue. It isn't in Europe, even in places that severely limit it.


As you're probably aware, that's what was being done at the state level where it belongs before the court quashed it.

[Peter1469]

i think after 40 years it might be time to get the fuck over it

if you think it's wrong, don't have one

If you let the people decide, preferably at the State level, they would get over it.

But that hasn't happened. Unlike in every other advanced nation.

Is not that the mantra about a single payer health care system?

[Chris]

yeah, whatever


If you don't care, why post? You raised the subtopic, I assumed you were interested in discussion of it.

[del]

If you let the people decide, preferably at the State level, they would get over it.

But that hasn't happened. Unlike in every other advanced nation.

Is not that the mantra about a single payer health care system?

i don't do mantras

if various pols didn't stir up the rubes for the past forty years, they'd have gotten over it

[del]

If you don't care, why post? You raised the subtopic, I assumed you were interested in discussion of it.

i can't think of much you have to say that interests me, frankly, but thanks for asking.

[Chris]

i can't think of much you have to say that interests me, frankly, but thanks for asking.

Question is, does someone who posts "yeah, whatever" really have anything to say. Apparently not. Nor does he get the self-contradiction.

[Peter1469]

i don't do mantras

if various pols didn't stir up the rubes for the past forty years, they'd have gotten over it

Any other explanation why the US is so hung up on the issue while Europe is not? And remember Europe is a mixed bag. Some places it is hard, others it is easy.

[del]

Question is, does someone who posts "yeah, whatever" really have anything to say. Apparently not. Nor does he get the self-contradiction.

yeah, whatever

[del]

Any other explanation why the US is so hung up on the issue while Europe is not? And remember Europe is a mixed bag. Some places it is hard, others it is easy.

both sides use it to stir up their base, and as mencken noted, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the american public.

so it's the gift that keeps on giving.

[Chris]

both sides use it to stir up their base, and as mencken noted, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the american public.

so it's the gift that keeps on giving.

Agreed, though what the great HL Mencken of the Old Right actually wrote was "Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."

[del]

Agreed, though what the great HL Mencken of the Old Right actually wrote was "Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."

yeah, whatever

[Paperback Writer]

It becomes harder to "get over it" as prenatal advancements make sustaining life outside the womb more possible for those infants in the 19-21 week frame. This would have been unheard of 40 years ago.

Allow that the younger generation is more concerned with homosexual rights than abortion. The latest polls are that the 18-32 year old range are less comfortable with it than those of previous generations and find it "mean". This is not your generation, obviously. It will, however, contribute to the discussion. It would be best to acknowledge their beliefs before finding that common ground or else you just won't find it.

[Peter1469]

both sides use it to stir up their base, and as mencken noted, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the american public.

so it's the gift that keeps on giving.

Yet it doesn't happen in Europe, where the legislative process was used. In the US we see a detached judicial branch dictating public policy. It does seem different from Europe, doesn't it.

[del]

It becomes harder to "get over it" as prenatal advancements make sustaining life outside the womb more possible for those infants in the 19-21 week frame. This would have been unheard of 40 years ago.

Allow that the younger generation is more concerned with homosexual rights than abortion. The latest polls are that the 18-32 year old range are less comfortable with it than those of previous generations and find it "mean". This is not your generation, obviously. It will, however, contribute to the discussion. It would be best to acknowledge their beliefs before finding that common ground or else you just won't find it.

i find that if i mind my own business, none of this crap matters too much.

i'm really not seeking common ground; if it's there, great and if not, move on.

18-32 is the age range of my kids, actually :)

[del]

Yet it doesn't happen in Europe, where the legislative process was used. In the US we see a detached judicial branch dictating public policy. It does seem different from Europe, doesn't it.

are there europeans agitating about the law?

regardless of how it was arrived at, it is the law. whining about the mean old judges forty years on is just politicking.

i think you're making a distinction without a difference.

[Chris]

It becomes harder to "get over it" as prenatal advancements make sustaining life outside the womb more possible for those infants in the 19-21 week frame. This would have been unheard of 40 years ago.

Allow that the younger generation is more concerned with homosexual rights than abortion. The latest polls are that the 18-32 year old range are less comfortable with it than those of previous generations and find it "mean". This is not your generation, obviously. It will, however, contribute to the discussion. It would be best to acknowledge their beliefs before finding that common ground or else you just won't find it.


Given our democratic/populist governments, this change in opinion will make a major difference.

(As an aside, Bullock and Shock, eds., The Liberal Tradition from Fox to Keynes, make this very point about how extending the franchise in Britain changed classical liberalism, concerned with negative rights, into modern liberalism, concerned with positive entitlements. Herbert Spencer's The Man versus the State, chronicles this as well.)

[Peter1469]

are there europeans agitating about the law?

regardless of how it was arrived at, it is the law. whining about the mean old judges forty years on is just politicking.

i think you're making a distinction without a difference.

No. In general there is no agitation about the abortion laws in Europe. And if I am not mistaken that are less free that ours. In many places at least. My point was whether the decision came from the people (legislation) versus the courts (black robed abstracted figures).

[Bob]

Yet it doesn't happen in Europe, where the legislative process was used. In the US we see a detached judicial branch dictating public policy. It does seem different from Europe, doesn't it.

I had never wondered how it works in Europe. I can't recall any of their courts giving the thumbs down to the government. Does it happen as it does in the USA?

[Peter1469]

I had never wondered how it works in Europe. I can't recall any of their courts giving the thumbs down to the government. Does it happen as it does in the USA?

Yes, their courts rules against the legislature sometimes. German courts have done it often with regards to legislation affecting the EU.

[del]

No. In general there is no agitation about the abortion laws in Europe. And if I am not mistaken that are less free that ours. In many places at least. My point was whether the decision came from the people (legislation) versus the courts (black robed abstracted figures).

i understand your point. my point is that it makes no difference; the civil rights act was passed legislatively, but it is still bitched and moaned about as is the abortion issue.

it's about pols using it as a wedge issue more than it's about how the law came to be, imo.

[Peter1469]

i understand your point. my point is that it makes no difference; the civil rights act was passed legislatively, but it is still bitched and moaned about as is the abortion issue.

it's about pols using it as a wedge issue more than it's about how the law came to be, imo.

There is no angst about the civil rights act in the US. There are intellectual debates about it, but that is not the same thing.

The vast majority of women who vote dem do so only because of the abortion issue. There are likely zero people who vote solely on the basis of the civil rights act.

[Archer0915]

It is interesting that a family's right to medical support is blocked in America by religion. Everyone engages in contraception including the religious who deny another that same benefit. Consider the fact humans stop life from forming through various means, if life is a religious goal then only abstinence, as the Catholic Church once taught, should be allowed. If we look closely, are not all means of contraception wrong for surely an ovum is potential life. Is male masturbation not a destruction of potential life. Why only a ban on contraceptives? But then the same corporations, known to our Supreme court as people, pay for Viagra. Rather odd how un-supportive Christian religions can be. Corporations sell to everyone not just the religious. Hobby Lobby will still help the impotent male get a hard-on, but spends enormous amounts of money to deny medicine for women that serves many beneficial purposes. And please stop criticizing other more fundamentalist religions, they are all the same given power, thus the separation of church and state. Society tries to save the untreated sick child do we now let them die because of this religious ruling? Ask Justice Alito.


"Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)? According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, “each one of these cases . . . would have to be evaluated on its own . . . apply[ing] the compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test.” Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision." from second link below


"And here's some more bullshit:


"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs."
But why not? If the government can directly fund access to contraceptives, surely it can also directly fund access to blood transfusions and vaccines. And let us not forget that, by arbitrary judicial fiat, direct government funding would "certainly be less restrictive of [citizens'] religious liberty"! So, y'know, it kinda seems as though this decision does imply "that all insurance mandates [must] necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs."" http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/07/hobby-lobby.html




"In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs. Compelling governmental interests in uniform compliance with the law, and disadvantages that religion-based opt-outs impose on others, hold no sway, the Court decides, at least when there is a “less restrictive alternative.” And such an alternative, the Court suggests, there always will be whenever, in lieu of tolling an enterprise claiming a religion-based exemption, the government, i.e., the general public, can pick up the tab....
[T]he Court forgets that religious organizations exist to serve a community of believers. For-profit corporations do not fit that bill. Moreover, history is not on the Court’s side. Recognition of the discrete characters of “ecclesiastical and lay” corporations dates back to Blackstone, see 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 458 (1765), and was reiterated by this Court centuries before the enactment of the Internal Revenue Code. See Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43, 49 (1815) (describing religious corporations); Trustees of Dartmouth College, 4 Wheat., at 645 (discussing “eleemosynary” corporations, including those “created for the promotion of religion”). To reiterate, "for-profit corporations are different from religious non-profits in that they use labor to make a profit, rather than to perpetuate [the] religious value[s] [shared by a community of believers]."" Justice Ginsburg


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/30/1310551/-In-Hobby-Lobby-Supremes-grant-religious-objection-rights-to-for-profit-corporations#


"The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A).


At issue here are regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), which, as relevant here, requires specified employers’ group health plans to furnish “preventive care and screenings” for women without “any cost sharing requirements,” 42 U. S. C. §300gg–13(a)(4). Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide. Ibid. Nonexempt employers are generally required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. Religious employers, such as churches, are exempt from this contraceptive mandate. HHS has also effectively exempted religious nonprofit organizations with religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services. Under this accommodation, the insurance issuer must exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer’s plan and provide plan participants with separate payments for contraceptive services without imposing any cost-sharing requirements on the employer, its insurance plan, or its employee beneficiaries." http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354

So they can not have protected sex and avoid pregnancy? Oh you think people are so stupid and sorry that they can not control themselves.

[del]

There is no angst about the civil rights act in the US. There are intellectual debates about it, but that is not the same thing.

The vast majority of women who vote dem do so only because of the abortion issue. There are likely zero people who vote solely on the basis of the civil rights act.

that's risible on its face

i suggest you open your eyes and read some of the threads on this board and get back to me

[Peter1469]

Sorry. There is no real outrage about the civil rights act. To compare that to the abortion issue in the US is to either:
1. be a political hack, basically lying for an agenda
or
2. be dumb as fuck


that's risible on its face

i suggest you open your eyes and read some of the threads on this board and get back to me

[del]

Sorry. There is no real outrage about the civil rights act. To compare that to the abortion issue in the US is to either:
1. be a political hack, basically lying for an agenda
or
2. be dumb as fuck

don't sugarcoat it, tell me how you really feel.

i'm sorry that reality interferes with your rubric, but that's the way it goes sometimes.

i do appreciate having a choice between being a liar or dumb as a post; it's one more than you have, apparently

[Peter1469]

don't sugarcoat it, tell me how you really feel.

i'm sorry that reality interferes with your rubric, but that's the way it goes sometimes.

i do appreciate having a choice between being a liar or dumb as a post; it's one more than you have, apparently

You are demonstrably incorrect. But for the record I place you in #1. #2 would be name calling and a violation of the rules. :smiley:

[Paperback Writer]

No one is outraged by a 50 year old piece of legislation. Americans reserve outrage for the telly.

[del]

You are demonstrably incorrect. But for the record I place you in #1. #2 would be name calling and a violation of the rules. :smiley:

and yet you've failed to demonstrate it

go figure

now go get your shinebox

[del]

No one is outraged by a 50 year old piece of legislation. Americans reserve outrage for the telly.

the only one using the word outraged would be you.

[Peter1469]

I don't have to prove a negative. There is no outrage over the civil rights act. For you to claim it, is well, strange. Odd.


and yet you've failed to demonstrate it

go figure

now go get your shinebox

[del]

I don't have to prove a negative. There is no outrage over the civil rights act. For you to claim it, is well, strange. Odd.

i didn't claim outrage, you did.

i said there were people who were still pissed off about it despite its legislative roots and for you to claim otherwise is either stupidity or willful ignorance

your choice

[Peter1469]

You said angst. I translated that to outrage. Tough shit.

Both are silly. There is neither angst or outrage about the civil rights act.


i didn't claim outrage, you did.

i said there were people who were still pissed off about it despite its legislative roots and for you to claim otherwise is either stupidity or willful ignorance

your choice

[del]

You said angst. I translated that to outrage. Tough shit.

Both are silly. There is neither angst or outrage about the civil rights act.

wrong again. you said angst. i said bitched and moaned. early onset?

of course, no one is bitching and moaning about it, ask one of the resident *racialists* how happy they are.

lol

[Mister D]

wrong again. you said angst. i said bitched and moaned. early onset?

of course, no one is bitching and moaning about it, ask one of the resident *racialists* how happy they are.

lol

I see plenty of libertarians criticize Title II on legal/philosophical grounds.

[Chris]

I see plenty of libertarians criticize Title II on legal/philosophical grounds.

We can start with Goldwater, speech published as "Where I Stand" (http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/jan_2003/when.htm):


...I wish to make myself perfectly clear. The two portions of this bill to
which I have constantly and consistently voiced objections, and which are of
such overriding significance that they are determinative of my vote on the
entire measure, are those which would embark the Federal government on a
regulatory course of action with regard to private enterprise in the area of
so-called 'public accommodations' and in the area of employment - to be more
specific, Titles II and VII of the bill.

I find no constitutional basis for the exercise of Federal regulatory
authority in either of these two areas; and I believe the attempted
usurpation of such power to be a grave threat to the very essence of our
basic system of government, namely, that of a constitutional republic in
which fifty sovereign states have reserved to themselves and to the people
those powers not specifically granted to the central or Federal government.

If it is the wish of the American people that the Federal government should
be granted the power to regulate in these two areas and in the manner
contemplated by this bill, then I say that the Constitution should be so
amended by the people as to authorize such action in accordance with the
procedures for amending the Constitution which that great document itself
prescribes.

I say further that for this great legislative body to ignore the
Constitution and the fundamental concepts of our governmental system is to
act in a manner which could ultimately destroy the freedom of all American
citizens, including the freedoms of the very persons whose feelings and
whose liberties are the major subject of this legislation.

My basic objection to this measure is, therefore, constitutional....

[midcan5]

I am curious what libertarians think of the Hobby Lobby ruling? If you answered above please reference post number.

Another pov below.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/07/04/hobby-lobby-decision-begins-to-contort-under-its-own-logic/

[Matty]

The Hobby Lobby ruling was a slap in the Christian bashers faces. I loved loved loved it.

[Chris]

I am curious what libertarians think of the Hobby Lobby ruling? If you answered above please reference post number.

Another pov below.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/07/04/hobby-lobby-decision-begins-to-contort-under-its-own-logic/


Are you, midcan, curious?

One, it was a good decision in favor of individual liberty.

Two, it was amusing watching liberal progressives freak out over not the ruling but their own imaginings of what it meant.

Now let's see if you're open to discussion...

[Peter1469]

The article answers your question:


The law requires the government to accommodate religious beliefs unless there is no other way to accomplish its goals.

Hobby Lobby allowed 16 other ways of contraception....




I am curious what libertarians think of the Hobby Lobby ruling? If you answered above please reference post number.

Another pov below.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/07/04/hobby-lobby-decision-begins-to-contort-under-its-own-logic/

[The Sage of Main Street]

A privately held company is refusing to pay for certain contraceptive meds/devices. The SCOTUS has upheld this. Hardly the end of the world. Low income women can most likely get assist for these from the government. Others will just have to pay outta pocket. That's life. It will be a slam dunk for the Demwits to call this "War on Women." It doesn't matter if it really is or if the GOPer base believes it isn't. That's life.

[The Sage of Main Street]

@Paperback Writer (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=862) says you suck for not combining all of them. If CS twists about 5 threads together at a time, he can make strings for PW's UKulele.

[The Sage of Main Street]

@exotix (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=516)

drinking coffee may help with that problem of yours. Rush recommends oxycodone. I guarantee it will straighten exotix out. Look what it's done for Rush, pepping him up to call women sluts. What a man!

[The Sage of Main Street]

that's risible on its face

i suggest you open your eyes and read some of the threads on this board and get back to me From the very beginning, the Civil Rights Act was a trick to get the average White person to vote Republican.

[ChoppedLiver]

Hobby Lobby objected to 4 out of 20 methods offered by the insurance company.

The left is spinning the issue to turn this into a war on women.

8202

:cool:

[Peter1469]

8202

:cool:
No. Why would any thinker say that? We don't need to pander to the left side of the bell cure. Be nice to them. But don't let them think that they are special.