• 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

So you don't think these forms of contraception are compelling? Compelling is obviously subjective but is above rational basis as far as a test goes. It's certainly no "gimme" or anything.

Yes, not surprising at all that an older Catholic male is dismissive of the government having a compelling interest in issuing some forms of contraceptives to women. Not surprising in the least.

I'll bet these forms of contraception would be compelling if ELC had ovaries.
 
Do you have a link to this Junebug? I'm curious which methods the ruling applied to and which it didn't. And yes I'm too lazy to read the decision.
 
Sorry to interrupt but can someone please tell me what happened that may effect me and my slingbox?
 
10,000th post, and that's the gem you trot out? :rulz:
 
hahahaha...to be honest it is more important than any of the other dribble I post. Slingbox is very important in my life. It is the only way I get through trips to Pittsburgh to see my in-laws.
 
I'll bet these forms of contraception would be compelling if ELC had ovaries.

I bet they wouldn't. I don't feel the govt has a compelling interest in mandating that my insurance cover rubbers or Viagra or any number of things, should you deem those comparable. Not sure if Plan B is one of the 4 objectionable things covered here, but my experience is that if there's an oops, you go fork out a couple bucks at planned parenthood or the pharmacy for it. That has been my experience 3 times and I never felt the govt had a compelling interest in making my insurance cover it. I don't think it's any of their business, and I don't think anybody else's insurance rates should be affected by the actions of my pecker or my girlfriend's vag.
 
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.

Rather than forcing nonparticipants to pay for her recreational copulation, why can't Sandra charge admission to her vagina?
 
Rather than forcing nonparticipants to pay for her recreational copulation, why can't Sandra charge admission to her vagina?

This isn't Amsterdam :noidea:
 
I bet they wouldn't. I don't feel the govt has a compelling interest in mandating that my insurance cover rubbers or Viagra or any number of things, should you deem those comparable. Not sure if Plan B is one of the 4 objectionable things covered here, but my experience is that if there's an oops, you go fork out a couple bucks at planned parenthood or the pharmacy for it. That has been my experience 3 times and I never felt the govt had a compelling interest in making my insurance cover it. I don't think it's any of their business, and I don't think anybody else's insurance rates should be affected by the actions of my pecker or my girlfriend's vag.

Rather than forcing nonparticipants to pay for her recreational copulation, why can't Sandra charge admission to her vagina?

The whole point of insurance is to pool risk. Many insureds are riskier than others for one reason or another, often because of their personal behavioral choices. Under the logic of these posts, people who ride motorcycles should not be insured for their injuries, and people who eat themselves into diabetes should not be able to access insurance for their care. Which may well be the desired outcome for these two posters. If so, they should just say they're against all insurance and want everyone to pay for their own health problems out of their own resources, or die if they're unable to do so. If we're going to have insurance, there is no reason that insurance should not cover against the risk of pregnancy (or endometriosis, or menstrual pain) in the same way that it covers the risk of motorcycle injuries or gluttony-induced diabetes.

Limiting this argument solely to female sexual behavior and reproductive health doesn't make any logical sense. When people attempt to make this argument, most rational observers will conclude that the proponent either has not thought their position through or that the proponent is a sexist ass.
 
I'm curious if there are other portions of the ACA which these types of companies might also find objectionable on religious grounds but weren't brought up in this case. In other words I wonder if this issue could feasibly be framed as an attack on women or not.
 
And under the HL decision, HL's female employees will be entitled to recieve the exact same measure of reproductive choices, without cost sharing, as any other company's employees.

This thread left the Hobby Lobby station a long time ago and entered Limbaugh territory. I was responding to the posts I quoted, not talking about Hobby Lobby.
 
What insurance also does is charge higher premiums to known risks. Car insurance rates are higher for inexperienced drivers or those who have had accidents than they are for experienced drivers with a clean record. ACA doesn't allow that.


The whole point of insurance is to pool risk. Many insureds are riskier than others for one reason or another, often because of their personal behavioral choices. Under the logic of these posts, people who ride motorcycles should not be insured for their injuries, and people who eat themselves into diabetes should not be able to access insurance for their care. Which may well be the desired outcome for these two posters. If so, they should just say they're against all insurance and want everyone to pay for their own health problems out of their own resources, or die if they're unable to do so. If we're going to have insurance, there is no reason that insurance should not cover against the risk of pregnancy (or endometriosis, or menstrual pain) in the same way that it covers the risk of motorcycle injuries or gluttony-induced diabetes.

Limiting this argument solely to female sexual behavior and reproductive health doesn't make any logical sense. When people attempt to make this argument, most rational observers will conclude that the proponent either has not thought their position through or that the proponent is a sexist ass.
 
Well that settles it. I know lots of men who have to take the pill or other reproductive medicines. Are they also offering vasectomies to the women employees?
 
What insurance also does is charge higher premiums to known risks. Car insurance rates are higher for inexperienced drivers or those who have had accidents than they are for experienced drivers with a clean record. ACA doesn't allow that.

ACA's a dumb bill that I have never supported. But I do believe that healthcare is a public good so generally speaking I have no problem with all beneficiaries of the system contributing more or less equally instead of parsing it through insurance company risk algorithms. What I do have a problem with is the concept that health care should be provided or withheld based on one group's personal moral code, which code is almost always applied in an irregular and discriminatory manner to disfavored groups.
 
I'm curious if there are other portions of the ACA which these types of companies might also find objectionable on religious grounds but weren't brought up in this case. In other words I wonder if this issue could feasibly be framed as an attack on women or not.

Probably stem cell related treatment. If not now, then in the future I would imagine.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11899-013-0191-0#

Life support would be another, but I think less and less religions object to that nowadays.
 
Yeah I was just wondering if there were other exemptions that under HL's rationale should have also exempted the company but they chose not to pursue it, instead simply sticking with the contraception issue.
 
Back
Top