• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

Why don't you take a little break from posting on this thread, huh? You are revealing a stupid, a special kind of stupid, that transcendent kind of stupid, the likes of which make it impossible for those around you (because we all are human, after all) not to correct you at every turn, thereby engaging you in all of your manifest stupidity, thus making it again bubble to the surface and explode in a cacaphony of more nonesense, and, by even responding--nay, by even reading your posts--making themselves, and the world around them, a little more stupid.

Keep getting personal. It makes you look so good.
 
The left wing's conception of "rights." Straight out of 1917. I do not exaggerate.

You have decided that Sandra Flake cannot forgo a couple of Starbucks visits per month to pay for her pills. She's a strong, independent woman who needs someone else to help her make sure she doesn't get knocked up when she is out screwing. Some war on women.

^^ How to demonstrate a total lack of self-awareness in one post.
 
The left wing's conception of "rights." Straight out of 1917. I do not exaggerate.

You have decided that Sandra Flake cannot forgo a couple of Starbucks visits per month to pay for her pills. She's a strong, independent woman who needs someone else to help her make sure she doesn't get knocked up when she is out screwing. Some war on women.

Everyone else already gave this post the derision it so rightly deserves. My response: Hobby Lobby and other conservative/religious groups apparently have no objection at all to providing health care so their employees can avoid or ameliorate the consequences of all kinds of other irresponsible, immoral, and sinful behavior (gluttony, sloth, and simple stupidity come to mind). The only kind of behavioral choices that these groups want to avoid subsidizing are women's sexual choices and specifically, birth control. Employees sleep around and get the clap? Covered. Eat your face off for 30 years and get the beetus? Covered. Tattoo removal? Might be covered in some plans. Get drunk and wreck your car? Injuries covered.

Only one specific subset of choices - a woman having sex, whether married or unmarried - is so morally awful that it can't be covered. The argument for contraception coverage for women is not an argument for a special subsidy for sluttiness. It's the simple request for women's reproductive health to receive the same subsidy as the dumbass Hobby Lobby counter jockey (male or female) who wrecks their ankle attempting a drunken skateboard maneuver.
 
923, better watch out. Saying this was an attack on women will get you a lot of shit here.
 
923, better watch out. Saying this was an attack on women will get you a lot of shit here.

I think this was a bad decision but don't they cover a lot of other forms of birth control? On Morning Joe this am, they were quoting 16 other forms being covered? While I think this is highly political suit and decision, I'm not sure I buy in on the whole war on women thing (to me the SCOTUS decision was all about sticking it to the ACA).

I'm not sure I know enough about the science of IUDs to understand the moral issue but isn't that their argument?
 
CH, how is it a "moral issue" if the same company has made millions in the companies that produce these devices.

I think one thing you and I would agree on is if we think a product is morally reprehensible that we wouldn't invest millions (or what we could afford) in the companies who produce them.

I think this throws a huge wrench into their entire case.

P.S. RE:Ginsburg's remarks about HL: She wasn't allowed to see anything about the investments they have repeatedly made. She could only comment on the evidence that was presented to her.
 
I'm not sure I know enough about the science of IUDs to understand the moral issue but isn't that their argument?

I haven't seen a list of what's covered and what's not, but IUDs primarily function by preventing fertilization, which isn't exactly a unique mechanism when it comes to birth control. I have no idea why the would object to covering IUDs, but not OCPs or condoms.
 
I hate to stop you when you are on a roll, but if you'd read the opinion, you would have seen that HL's objection was not to contraception generally. It was only to those forms of contraception that are abortifacients. I know that gets in the way of your talking points, but that strikes me as an important distinction, even if that objection is based on ancient texts that were written before the enlightenment.

If that's true, then HL's objection is scientifically unsound. IUDs chiefly function by preventing fertilization.

Reference: Oritz ME, Croxatto HB (2007). "Copper-T intrauterine device and levonorgestrel intrauterine system: biological bases of their mechanism of action". Contraception 75 (6 Suppl): S16–S30. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2007.01.020. PMID 17531610.

The bulk of the data indicate that if any embryos are formed in the chronic presence of an IUD, it happens at a much lower rate than in non-IUD users. The common belief that the usual mechanism of action of IUDs in women is destruction of embryos in the uterus is not supported by empirical evidence.
 
I hate to stop you when you are on a roll, but if you'd read the opinion, you would have seen that HL's objection was not to contraception generally. It was only to those forms of contraception that are abortifacients. I know that gets in the way of your talking points, but that strikes me as an important distinction, even if that objection is based on ancient texts that were written before the enlightenment.

You're correct (although you should have said "that they believe are abortifacients, regardless of real scientific conflict over that issue"). However, there are pending lawsuits by Notre Dame and the Little Sisters of the Poor demanding relief from even signing the form to get the waiver, and they object to all forms of contraception. You can bet that for-profit businesses owned by Catholics and perhaps others will seek relief from all forms of contraception based on Hobby Lobby.
 
If that's true, then HL's objection is scientifically unsound. IUDs chiefly function by preventing fertilization.

Reference: Oritz ME, Croxatto HB (2007). "Copper-T intrauterine device and levonorgestrel intrauterine system: biological bases of their mechanism of action". Contraception 75 (6 Suppl): S16–S30. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2007.01.020. PMID 17531610.

The bulk of the data indicate that if any embryos are formed in the chronic presence of an IUD, it happens at a much lower rate than in non-IUD users. The common belief that the usual mechanism of action of IUDs in women is destruction of embryos in the uterus is not supported by empirical evidence.


Which hits on a major issue in the opinion, which relies on HL's "sincerely held belief" that certain contraceptives destroy embryos. The opinion does not address the scientific validity of that belief. It would appear to open the door to corporate action under the shield of beliefs that directly contradict facts.
 
Last edited:
You're correct (although you should have said "that they believe are abortifacients, regardless of real scientific conflict over that issue"). However, there are pending lawsuits by Notre Dame and the Little Sisters of the Poor demanding relief from even signing the form to get the waiver, and they object to all forms of contraception. You can bet that for-profit businesses owned by Catholics and perhaps others will seek relief from all forms of contraception based on Hobby Lobby.

The fact that you can specifically predict who will seek relief and for what indicates that they aren't making it up just to avoid paying a slightly increased premium. It's a legit religious belief that has been around for hundreds of years.
 
For the record, I made that change before I saw the above.

I know about the ND/LSOTP cases. Their argument is different from HL. I'm not sure why you insist on misrepresenting HL's position.

In the series of posts in question, I was not seeking to specifically parse HL's position in this case, but rather to speak to a larger issue with contraceptive objections (which was begun by the ridiculous Sandra Fluke post). Sorry if that was unclear.

Regardless of what I think about the specific legal arguments of HL or Notre Dame or the Little Sisters or anyone else, my ultimate conclusion from the Obamacare debacle and this series of court cases is that we need to stop providing health insurance coverage through employers, like, yesterday.
 
Which hits on a major issue in the opinion, which relies on HL's "sincerely held belief" that certain contraceptives destroy embryos. The opinion does not address the scientific validity of that belief. It would appear to open the door to corporate action under the shield of beliefs that directly contradict facts.

I haven't read the briefs (and wouldn't understand much of it if I did), but was this brought up at all in the case? It's actually pretty mind-boggling if it wasn't.
 
the better question is, why on earth do we continue to live with a system that now requires the government and the courts to inquire into whether or not someone's religion is "sincere"?
 
I haven't read the briefs (and wouldn't understand much of it if I did), but was this brought up at all in the case? It's actually pretty mind-boggling if it wasn't.

The statute the ACA contraception mandate supposedly violates in this case (The RFRA) merely requires that a religious belief be sincerely held.
 
Back
Top