• 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!

Supreme Court to hear ACA case mandatory contraception

RJKarl said:
Can a corporation owned by Christian Scientists deny all insurance coverage to their employees?

If they can't, then there is no logical reason to all special handling to anti-contraception people.

If the SC overturns this. Hillary is the lock of all locks in 2016. She will get 70+% of the under 40 women's vote.
Click to expand...

I love how apparently the highest priority issue in all of our fucked-up government for 70+% of women under 40 is getting someone else to pay for their contraception.
 
Why does the government do anything I don't want it to? If it had just done what it should have done and passed everything I agree with then we would never have any debate.

That's such a stupid argument.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I love how apparently the highest priority issue in all of our fucked-up government for 70+% of women under 40 is getting someone else to pay for their contraception.
Click to expand...

As usual WTF are you talking about? This is about private insurance policies having that coverage. It absolutely the cost for everyone in the pool.

But once again don't let logic get in the way of your extremism.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
You don't think the difference between a classified religious organization and a for-profit corporation is particularly relevant in this discussion?

Also why would the government have not mandated contraceptive coverage when it wanted it to be mandated? You think that they "should have" done it because that's what you want, not because the government shouldn't have done it given the majority they had to pass it.
Click to expand...

It's only relevant if they continue to push this stupid policy which they shouldn't have pushed in the first place. If you drop the insistence on contraception, it's a moot point. If, as a response to this or a future SCOTUS decision, they decide to stick with the contraception coverage but make an exception for religious organizations, then yes it will have to write pages of unnecessary regulations and hire individual to enforce those regulations in order to determine what constitutes a valid religious objection from a valid religious organization.

I don't really get your second paragraph. Mandating contraception coverage was an administrative decision made by the administration. It was not specifically written into the text of the bill that passed. The bill obviously allowed the admin leeway to make such calls and implement policy, but that doesn't mean contraceptive coverage was written into the bill that passed. The administration, in the course of writing the pages and pages of rules used to implement the ACA (case in point-- the rules governing substantial changes to health plans which have caused many people to lose their insurance), decided it was appropriate to include contraceptive coverage. This really isn't about what I want. My personal moral sensibilities are not affected by that call, but my sense of what the government should and should not do sure is. They opened this can of worms. They should be forced to eat it.
 
ELC if a corporation is headed by a Christian Scientist can he deny all insurance to his employees as his faith opposes it?

If the CEO or owner of a company opposes blood transfusions can he eliminate covering them for his employees?

You can't say it's OK not OK for contraception coverage and then deny the Christian Scientist or any other decision based on faith.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
It's only relevant if they continue to push this stupid policy which they shouldn't have pushed in the first place.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading after this line. You're basically proving what numbers keeps saying. You don't like the policy, so it's stupid. We got it.
 
RJKarl said:
ELC if a corporation is headed by a Christian Scientist can he deny all insurance to his employees as his faith opposes it?

If the CEO or owner of a company opposes blood transfusions can he eliminate covering them for his employees?

You can't say it's OK not OK for contraception coverage and then deny the Christian Scientist or any other decision based on faith.
Click to expand...

Yes. He can deny insurance. That remains his choice even under the ABA. The question is whether the ABA can mandate he either does something against his religious beliefs or pay a fine. "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
 
I think the court will draw the distinction between an employer being mandated to pay just for contraception and paying for health insurance which happens to include contraception. Ultimately, I think the provision will be upheld. This is a slippery slope argument they do not want to go down, and it will only open the flood gates. Then again, I thought SCOTUS was going to rule ACA unconstitutional, so I'm probably wrong again.
 
What if a Muslim run business said, "My religion says serving or hiring Christians is against my religion."

Why is denying contraceptive coverage to Christian owned businesses OK, but not keeping the Muslim from living the tenets of his religion?
 
@iowahawkblog: Maybe the White House would be willing to make a deal with Hobby Lobby if they started their own nuclear program.
 
RJKarl said:
What if a Muslim run business said, "My religion says serving or hiring Christians is against my religion."

Why is denying contraceptive coverage to Christian owned businesses OK, but not keeping the Muslim from living the tenets of his religion?
Click to expand...

Then said Muslim would be violating established laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring based on religious beliefs.

Denying contraceptive coverage is a different question than employment discrimination.

Next question.
 
Les Grossman said:
I think the court will draw the distinction between an employer being mandated to pay just for contraception and paying for health insurance which happens to include contraception. Ultimately, I think the provision will be upheld. This is a slippery slope argument they do not want to go down, and it will only open the flood gates. Then again, I thought SCOTUS was going to rule ACA unconstitutional, so I'm probably wrong again.
Click to expand...

Either way it is a slippery slope. The law itself was upheld on shakey grounds. They went to the power to tax as opposed to the power to regulate interstate commerce. But now it opens the floodgates over the power to tax those who don't do as the government commands. This is another potential battle line.
 
DeacMan said:
Then said Muslim would be violating established laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring based on religious beliefs.

Denying contraceptive coverage is a different question than employment discrimination.

Next question.
Click to expand...

ACA is established law as well.
 
DeacMan said:
Either way it is a slippery slope. The law itself was upheld on shakey grounds. They went to the power to tax as opposed to the power to regulate interstate commerce. But now it opens the floodgates over the power to tax those who don't do as the government commands. This is another potential battle line.
Click to expand...

So some Christians' beliefs deserve to be protected but not others.

Why isn't a denial of religion to keep Mormons or Muslims from marrying as many women as they choose? Under each faith this is allowed.

What aren't Reastafarians allowed to smoke, grow and possess ganja? It's a sacrament to them.

Basically if Court protects a Christian corporation's right not to follow established laws they don't agree with, they are discriminating against religions they don't approve of or practices they deem wrong.

Whether you like it or not ACA is the law of the land.
 
Deadbolt said:
I stopped reading after this line. You're basically proving what numbers keeps saying. You don't like the policy, so it's stupid. We got it.
Click to expand...

It's undeniably stupid because he picked a fight he didn't have to. Really, what justification is there for mandating contraception coverage other than to poke a finger in the eye of the religious right? Spare me "Well there are cases when birth control pills are needed for health reasons." Sure there are. That's what meds are for in general and I don't see all meds being covered without copayment.


----------
Tapatalk.
 
Why should a company have to provide anything? If you don't like the benefits then don't work there. If enough people feel that way, then the company won't have enough employees and will either have to adapt or close its doors.
 
I bet if you did a study there are no meds (other than vaccines which are covered) which lower healthcare costs more than contraceptives.
 
ddeacs98 said:
Why should a company have to provide anything? If you don't like the benefits then don't work there. If enough people feel that way, then the company won't have enough employees and will either have to adapt or close its doors.
Click to expand...

Then a company should be allowed women, blacks and non-Christians less for the same job than it pays white, male Christians.

If a company doesn't have to follow this law, why should they have to follow any law?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top