Page 14 of 169 FirstFirst ... 49101112131415161718192464114 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 3371

Thread: SCOTUS decisions

  1. #261
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    And will get nowhere. The same House has voted over 50 times to repeal ACA in its entirety.

  2. #262
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    Agreed.

    The five men also agreed that their ruling only applies to corporations (people) with "sincerely held" religious beliefs. You know, the kind of religious beliefs that are so sincerely anti-birth control that they invest in and profit from companies that manufacture birth control. The kind of religious beliefs that cite as justification for their beliefs a series of religious texts written before Western Medicine as we know it existed.

    one of the five men behind the majority ruling have have ever suffered from endometriosis, painful periods, dangerous pregnancies, or simply risked becoming pregnant at a time that they weren't mentally, fiscally, or physically prepared for a pregnancy. They bought Hobby Lobby's "RELIGIOUS LIBERTY!" argument despite the fact that Hobby Lobby doesn't personally object to covering vasectomies for men; their religion only applies slut panic to women.


    The bold is a good point, the rest of the quote is not.

    The Court should not be involved in determining the rationality or validity of a religious belief, or even the consistency of a belief system. It should, however, take into consideration evidence that might question the sincerity of the belief that is allegedly burdened.

    Not familiar with Hobby Lobby's finances, but if they indeed knowingly invest in companies that manufacture these types of birth control should have been considered in determining the sincerity of the belief.

  3. #263
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    And will get nowhere. The same House has voted over 50 times to repeal ACA in its entirety.
    "These women would still be entitled to all FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing." But I guess you know more than FIVE Supreme Court Justices.
    Last edited by RChildress107; 06-30-2014 at 03:59 PM.

  4. #264
    Best thing from that article "If corporations are people then why can't I punch one in the fucking face?"

  5. #265
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    120,423
    Well the Court has determined that Hobby Lobby has religious beliefs that are rational while closing the door on other religious beliefs that apparently they believe are not rational enough.

    Did the majority opinion include anything about sincerity? If so, why didn't Hobby Lobby's investment practices come up?

  6. #266
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    HL did invest in and profited from companies that made birth control products. But this info was not considered admissible.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/

    Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection

    "This according to Mother Jones’ Molly Redden:

    Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012 (see above)—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k)."

    and more:

    "The following is a summation of the companies manufacturing these products that are held by the Hobby Lobby employee retirement plan, as set forth by Ms. Redden’s remarkable reporting:

    These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis ACT -0.26%, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer PFE +0.15%, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer , which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca AZN +0.47%, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna AET -0.72% and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell."

    This case was a total scam to change our laws and to save the family money on insurance premiums.

    I had posted very similar links on the previous thread.

  7. #267
    Quote Originally Posted by deac29 View Post
    But the ACA was passed without any Republican support. If Democrats wanted, or were able, to pass single payer, they could have done so.
    Dems only got to 60 votes in the Senate by Specter changing parties and bribing Ben Nelson. May have lost at least those two if they pushed for single payer. GOP likely has 54 seats in the next Senate and the Dems won't get close to 60 seats again unless there's a huge rout in 2016.

  8. #268
    2 points:

    1. I cannot understand how it is unconstitutional for a court to inquire into the validity or internal consistency of a religion, but constitutional (and apparently to the Hobby Lobby family, desirable) to have courts inquire into the sincerity of a business owner's religious beliefs. If I am a Catholic business owner and I want to claim this newly created judicial exemption to the healthcare law, do I want HHS and the IRS investigating my life to see how "sincere" I am? How about my family? Which brings me to point 2:

    2. the whole nasty business just screams out how stupid it is to deliver healthcare through employers. it's dumb, dumb, dumb. we need to stop it already.

  9. #269
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post

    Did the majority opinion include anything about sincerity? If so, why didn't Hobby Lobby's investment practices come up?
    No. That's a factual question. Trial courts, not appellate courts, decide factual questions (as a general principle).

  10. #270
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    So the upshot of this decision (absent hypothetical doomsday scenarios) is that Hobby Lobby gets to claim the same exemption as religious organizations meaning female Hobby Lobby employees still get contraceptive coverage pursuant to 45 CFR 147.131(c)(2):

    "A group health insurance issuer that receives [notice of exemption] must: (A) Expressly exclude contraceptive coverage from the group health insurance coverage provided in connection with the group health plan; and (B) Provide separate payments for any contraceptive services required to be covered under 147.130(a)(1)(iv) for plan participants and beneficiaries for so long as they remain enrolled in the plan."

    How exactly does that jeopardize the health of female Hobby Lobby employees?

  11. #271
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    120,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    Well, that didn't take long. At least you are honest about the fact that your objection is based, in part, on a hostility to religion.
    More evidence you see people as broad stereotypes.

    I think anybody who has actually read my posts would know I've clearly not hostile toward religion.

  12. #272
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    So the upshot of this decision (absent hypothetical doomsday scenarios) is that Hobby Lobby gets to claim the same exemption as religious organizations meaning female Hobby Lobby employees still get contraceptive coverage pursuant to 45 CFR 147.131(c)(2):

    "A group health insurance issuer that receives [notice of exemption] must: (A) Expressly exclude contraceptive coverage from the group health insurance coverage provided in connection with the group health plan; and (B) Provide separate payments for any contraceptive services required to be covered under 147.130(a)(1)(iv) for plan participants and beneficiaries for so long as they remain enrolled in the plan."

    How exactly does that jeopardize the health of female Hobby Lobby employees?
    That particular exemption is also the subject of litigation by the Little Sisters of the Poor and some other Catholic organizations who argue that in some way, their dollars are still being used to indirectly subsidize contraception and that by allowing that to happen their First Amendment rights are violated. So, it remains to be seen whether this exemption will be available to HL employees after Alito, Scalia and Co. get their hands on the Little Sisters case.

  13. #273
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Deacon923 View Post
    That particular exemption is also the subject of litigation by the Little Sisters of the Poor and some other Catholic organizations who argue that in some way, their dollars are still being used to indirectly subsidize contraception and that by allowing that to happen their First Amendment rights are violated. So, it remains to be seen whether this exemption will be available to HL employees after Alito, Scalia and Co. get their hands on the Little Sisters case.
    But we should totally overreact and freak out about it now? Maybe including mandated free birth control in already contentious legislation when a large portion of the country thinks birth control is immoral wasn't the best idea. I don't happen to agree with those people but I will also refrain from accusing them of waging a war on women

  14. #274
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    So the upshot of this decision (absent hypothetical doomsday scenarios) is that Hobby Lobby gets to claim the same exemption as religious organizations meaning female Hobby Lobby employees still get contraceptive coverage pursuant to 45 CFR 147.131(c)(2):

    "A group health insurance issuer that receives [notice of exemption] must: (A) Expressly exclude contraceptive coverage from the group health insurance coverage provided in connection with the group health plan; and (B) Provide separate payments for any contraceptive services required to be covered under 147.130(a)(1)(iv) for plan participants and beneficiaries for so long as they remain enrolled in the plan."
    HL and others will have direct knowledge of which employees are using "unapproved" birth control. Do those employees have any legal protections from being terminated because of their birth control choices?

  15. #275
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by FuckmouthedRube View Post
    HL and others will have direct knowledge of which employees are using "unapproved" birth control. Do those employees have any legal protections from being terminated because of their birth control choices?
    I don't think that sounds accurate. Why would HL have access to information about separate payments made by a private insurer? I would imagine that would raise serious HIPPA concerns but admit my knowledge on the subject is limited.

  16. #276
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    120,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    You must have me confused with someone else.

    The quote you excerpted from the article that I bolded sure is hostile to religion.
    I don't think the quote is "hostile to religion." I think it's hostile toward using religious beliefs to govern who gets what health coverage.

    Either way, you're painting with a broad brush to say I'm hostile toward religion given plenty of evidence that I'm a believer myself.

  17. #277
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by FuckmouthedRube View Post
    HL and others will have direct knowledge of which employees are using "unapproved" birth control. Do those employees have any legal protections from being terminated because of their birth control choices?
    They will be able to know by the payments on those accounts.

  18. #278
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    They will be able to know by the payments on those accounts.
    Why would they be able to see those payments? The employer isn't making the payment. Anyone with knowledge of the insurance industry care to weigh in? I'm almost certain an employer doesn't have access information on the specific services its employees end up using.

  19. #279
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    More evidence you see people as broad stereotypes.

    I think anybody who has actually read my posts would know I've clearly not hostile toward religion.
    Says the asshole who would stereotype anyone if they strayed one iota from litmus-test party lines.

    STFU

  20. #280
    Oh look, the gang's all here.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •