Page 17 of 134 FirstFirst ... 712131415161718192021222767117 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 340 of 2675

Thread: SCOTUS decisions

  1. #321
    Quote Originally Posted by tjcmd View Post
    RJ seems somewhat frustrated in his head.
    FIFY

  2. #322
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    69,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    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.

  3. #323
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    69,146
    Quote Originally Posted by HeltonCreek View Post
    So this is pretty much bullshit. Take a look at the number of executive orders issued by previous presidents.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ders-guns.html
    He's been told what he has to think about executive orders. The facts are irrelevant.

  4. #324
    Quote Originally Posted by RaleighDevil View 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.
    ^^ How to demonstrate a total lack of self-awareness in one post.

  5. #325
    Quote Originally Posted by RaleighDevil View 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.

  6. #326
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    69,146
    923, better watch out. Saying this was an attack on women will get you a lot of shit here.

  7. #327
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    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?

  8. #328
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    69,146
    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.

  9. #329
    How is this sticking it to the ACA?

  10. #330
    Quote Originally Posted by CHDeac View Post
    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.

  11. #331
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    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.

  12. #332
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    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.

  13. #333
    Quote Originally Posted by DeacinBama View Post
    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 by deacz; 07-01-2014 at 11:27 AM.

  14. #334
    Quote Originally Posted by Deacon923 View Post
    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.

  15. #335
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    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.

  16. #336
    Quote Originally Posted by deacz View Post
    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.

  17. #337
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    69,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    From the materials I've seen, the problem is that the science is inconclusive. HL should be permitted to make choices like this in gray areas without its sincerity being called into question.

    http://m.theatlantic.com/health/arch...rtions/284382/
    How sincere can you be about something when you make money from investing in something you call immoral?

  18. #338
    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"?

  19. #339
    Rusty Larue

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

  20. #340
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    69,146
    That's also a good question.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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