[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /viewtopic.php on line 988: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone.
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /viewtopic.php on line 988: getdate(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone.
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4505: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/functions.php:3706)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4507: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/functions.php:3706)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4508: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/functions.php:3706)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4509: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /includes/functions.php:3706)
www.goodeatsfanpage.com • View topic - Hobby Lobby decision

Hobby Lobby decision

Want to talk politics? Find your threads here! (NOTE: If you started a politics thread in the general forum, it's probably here by now.)

Moderator: Chef Mongo

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby Norm357 » Wed Jul 02, 2014 5:36 pm

Nitro wrote:
ABwannabe wrote:I haven't had the time to read anything in depth. But, on the surface, I applaud the decision.

In my opinion, forcing a business -- particularly a "closely held" or "family run" business -- to act unethically (as the business defines ethics) is usually wrong*. I happen to think that forcing businesses to even provide insurance (and specifc, controversial insurance) is wrong. Businesses should be able to choose whether, and what form, of insurance they provide. And, frankly, I don't konw why an interstate free market of insurance companies is a bad idea, to make the offerings better. This is little different than forcing a business to match 401(k) offerings.

*obviously there *is* a line in allowing the business to define ethics. Child labor laws, etc. I happen to contend that this issue doesn't cross that line.


Birth control pills have been used for other medical purposes. Why should one person's prescribed medication be paid for, but another's not be? The court says this ruling doesn't apply to vaccines or blood transfusions, but should a company that provides health coverage be allowed to not allow those to be covered because they are against it? Should a company be able to cover an abortion if the life of the mother is at risk but not cover it in a rape because of how the owners beliefs are aligned?


Why do you believe that Hobby Lobby is not covering birth control? They are in fact covering 16 different kinds of birth control including the pill used for hormanal treatments.
Don't pity the rescue dog, adopt him. If he was human, he would be the one with stories to tell and books to write.

Any idiot can kill a shark. It takes a real man to catch one, kiss him on the head, and let him go.

Image
User avatar
Norm357
Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 4909
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:36 pm
Location: Atlanta GA

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby carla » Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:55 pm

This is hypocritical and I think they should divest:

"Hobby Lobby’s founders have made it clear that any abortion and certain contraceptives are unacceptable in their eyes, yet the company’s 401(k) plan has millions of dollars invested in funds that own the companies that make birth control methods including Plan B, the so-called “morning after” drug.
Employees have the option to put their retirement dollars — and the money that Hobby Lobby contributes on their behalf — into over a dozen different mutual funds.
At least eight of those funds have been invested in companies that produce contraceptives such as Teva Pharmaceutical, Bayer, and Pfizer, according to a CNNMoney analysis. Teva makes Plan B. At least one fund also held Forest Laboratories, which makes a drug that is used to induce abortions. ... While Teva and Pfizer might be off-limits, what about a company like Aetna that is a health care insurer, but puts Plan B on its preferred drug list?"

Read more: http://q13fox.com/2014/07/01/hypocrisy- ... z36M3rE23z

Read more: http://q13fox.com/2014/07/01/hypocrisy- ... z36M2fIU56
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby carla » Wed Jul 02, 2014 7:04 pm

Nitro wrote:Would an owner be allowed to change his mind? Say something like "I went on a church retreat last weekend and now feel this procedure is morally wrong, so I'm no longer going to cover it", or cover something in certain situations and not others? Like insurance will pick up the cost of a medically necessary abortion if the life of the mother is at stake, but not if it was rape?

Some will change their minds. Of course it's not just Hobby Lobby & Conestoga Wood, and there are always amicus curiae briefs.

"Christopher and Mary Anne Yep, the devout Roman Catholic founders and owners of the closely-held, family-owned Triune Health Group, Ltd., having already filed separate federal and state court complaints, and received preliminary injunctions temporarily stopping the federal and the Illinois state governments, pending further litigation, from forcing them under sanction of severe monetary penalties and other regulatory requirements to provide insurance coverage and pay for abortifacients, sterilizations, contraceptives and related counseling that they conscientiously believe constitutes material cooperation with evil as taught by the Roman Catholic Church."
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/6014674400.html

There are many other news articles about Triune. True, one doesn't have to work there. But it sounds discriminatory to me.

"We're ready to go"
Posted: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 4:13 pm | Updated: 6:01 pm, Wed Jul 2, 2014.
Associated Press |

NEW YORK (AP) — Business owners who don't want to pay for their employees' birth control are ending that coverage after the Supreme Court said they could choose on grounds of religious belief not to comply with part of the health care law. Some owners are already in touch with their brokers in the wake of Monday's ruling.
Triune Health Group Ltd. wants to know how soon it can change its coverage to stop paying for all contraceptives, said Mary Anne Yep, co-owner of the Oak Brook, Illinois company that provides medical management services.
"We were ready to go when we heard the decision," she said. Triune had filed lawsuits against the U.S. government and the state of Illinois because of requirements that they pay for contraception.
http://www.themonitor.com/news/state/ru ... 05236.html
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby Norm357 » Wed Jul 02, 2014 7:55 pm

carla wrote:This is hypocritical and I think they should divest:

"Hobby Lobby’s founders have made it clear that any abortion and certain contraceptives are unacceptable in their eyes, yet the company’s 401(k) plan has millions of dollars invested in funds that own the companies that make birth control methods including Plan B, the so-called “morning after” drug.
Employees have the option to put their retirement dollars — and the money that Hobby Lobby contributes on their behalf — into over a dozen different mutual funds.
At least eight of those funds have been invested in companies that produce contraceptives such as Teva Pharmaceutical, Bayer, and Pfizer, according to a CNNMoney analysis. Teva makes Plan B. At least one fund also held Forest Laboratories, which makes a drug that is used to induce abortions. ... While Teva and Pfizer might be off-limits, what about a company like Aetna that is a health care insurer, but puts Plan B on its preferred drug list?"

Read more: http://q13fox.com/2014/07/01/hypocrisy- ... z36M3rE23z

Read more: http://q13fox.com/2014/07/01/hypocrisy- ... z36M2fIU56


What's in your 401k? Bet you couldn't tell me. :wink:
Don't pity the rescue dog, adopt him. If he was human, he would be the one with stories to tell and books to write.

Any idiot can kill a shark. It takes a real man to catch one, kiss him on the head, and let him go.

Image
User avatar
Norm357
Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 4909
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:36 pm
Location: Atlanta GA

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby okbye » Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:00 pm

ABwannabe wrote:Slam and Okbye, may I make an observation and request?

You're both smart people with valuable insight. It saddens me to see personal insults brought into discussions when you both can (and often do) contribute much more.

Slamdunkpro wrote: you're drinking the kool-aid
okbye wrote:I'm afraid it's you Slam who always drink the republican poison kool aid. It could be the best healthcare plan the world has ever seen and you would hate it because Obama is president.



I said that because he always pulls out the stupid "kool aid" comment whenever someone doesn't agree with him. It's infantile and insulting. I did not insult him, I just used his own improper word back at him. I bunny hate that phrase and it's the first time I have ever used it. The fact that you think it's an insult reinforces my opinion of it.
I don't mean to sound cold, cruel or vicious but I am so that's the way it comes out - Bill Hicks

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.“ Homer Simpson

Charlie Brooker: "What is the most complicated thing you do in your kitchen?"
David Mitchell: "Worry about death."
User avatar
okbye
Crazy Aunt
 
Posts: 14521
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 5:24 pm
Location: phoenix, az

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby okbye » Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:04 pm

ABwannabe wrote:
okbye wrote:Contraception is much cheaper than a child, especially an unwanted child.

That's beside the point. The ruling wasn't to determine whether a fetus is a child; it was to determine whether the government has the authority to force its definition of when a fetus is a child onto a business.

Plus, your statement above could be used as a first -- of not too many -- steps towards a China-like "One child" policy. I'm not saying that you would agree with that; it would certainly be a major imposition of personal rights, religious and non-religious. It also sounds like you're putting a price tag on human life.


How so? From an insurance company point of view providing contraception to a woman saves them money, it is much cheaper than if she were to have a child. Human life does have a price on it, didn't they send you a bill for your children? I think the China thing is really a stretch, not sure how you even got close to that from what I said.

The ruling is kinda of to determine if a fetus is a human life because that is the entire basis of why HL objects to the certain forma of birth control. If they didn't think a zygote was human they wouldn't have a problem with them.
I don't mean to sound cold, cruel or vicious but I am so that's the way it comes out - Bill Hicks

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.“ Homer Simpson

Charlie Brooker: "What is the most complicated thing you do in your kitchen?"
David Mitchell: "Worry about death."
User avatar
okbye
Crazy Aunt
 
Posts: 14521
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 5:24 pm
Location: phoenix, az

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby okbye » Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:08 pm

Norm357 wrote:
What's in your 401k? Bet you couldn't tell me. :wink:


Probably not but this was made public months ago and they haven't taken any steps to change it. When I had mutual funds they did send lists of what stocks were held. If they had chosen to not read them, and frankly I doubt many people do, they still should have made some changes when it was pointed out to them if they feel so strongly about it. If it had been me in their situation I would have released a statement saying I wasn't aware and I would be changing it immediately. I can think of several types of companies I wouldn't want to be tied to and you better bet I would not stand for owning stock in them.
I don't mean to sound cold, cruel or vicious but I am so that's the way it comes out - Bill Hicks

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.“ Homer Simpson

Charlie Brooker: "What is the most complicated thing you do in your kitchen?"
David Mitchell: "Worry about death."
User avatar
okbye
Crazy Aunt
 
Posts: 14521
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 5:24 pm
Location: phoenix, az

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby carla » Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:09 pm

Actually, Norm, I chose a socially responsible fund for my 403b. Thanks for asking.
As to my 401k, you are right, I'm not up on every holding. I don't have the holdings of either at my fingertips.
But I'm not as blind as you imply.

I was also somewhat active in the South Africa divestment movement. El Salvador and the USA's involvement was my first activism, in the early 80's. Birth control for poor women has been on of my focuses, as activism and employment.

Norm357 wrote:
carla wrote:This is hypocritical and I think they should divest:

"Hobby Lobby’s founders have made it clear that any abortion and certain contraceptives are unacceptable in their eyes, yet the company’s 401(k) plan has millions of dollars invested in funds that own the companies that make birth control methods including Plan B, the so-called “morning after” drug.
...
Read more: http://q13fox.com/2014/07/01/hypocrisy- ... z36M2fIU56


What's in your 401k? Bet you couldn't tell me. :wink:
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby carla » Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:13 pm

okbye wrote:How so? From an insurance company point of view providing contraception to a woman saves them money, it is much cheaper than if she were to have a child.

So true. America is a corporate-ocracy and has been for decades. There's great coverage for sterilization, I wish more people would avail themselves of it.
eta for made-up spelling.
Last edited by carla on Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby carla » Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:18 pm

Norm357 wrote:What's in your 401k? Bet you couldn't tell me. :wink:


A later thought: Interesting that you assume I HAVE a 401k!
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby Slamdunkpro » Wed Jul 02, 2014 9:26 pm

carla wrote: But it sounds discriminatory to me.


How so? Who is being denied anything based on this SCOTUS ruling?
No Clicky Blind Linky's!
There is no problem that can’t be solved with a liberal application of sex, tequila, money, or high explosives, not necessarily in that order
I've been kissed by Pixie!
User avatar
Slamdunkpro
Fleet Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 5155
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby carla » Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:28 pm

Women, and men involved with women, are being denied certain forms of birth control. A friend who did not want to get pregnant did so on the pill. I got pregnant using a diaphragm with a serious partner, I went back on the pill. Granted, I would not have known to use Plan B due to the diaphragm, but I did use it once, decades ago, when I had to call numerous pharmacies. Not many young women are that assertive. Of course I was young and stupid. I'll never know if I needed it (I wasn't tracking my cycle at that age). There are use issues with condoms and other methods, they're not all stories or excuses, especially with the pill and individual chemistry/hormones. Birth control failures are my reason for mentioning that men are also affected. I believe women should take full responsibility for birth control to protect themselves. Men should, but don't. I've had one partner in my life who was wedded to condoms and I honor him for that.

I personally don't agree with the definition of a zygote as a baby or person. I support use of an IUD if a woman chooses that method.

Much more important, I support the belief that birth control and hormonal medicine is an issue between a woman and her doctor. The Supreme Court should not be involved in medical decisions. I have had and do have sex and other hormone imbalances treated by a doctor. No employer has a right to get between me and my doctor and medical care.

Just my preferences and beliefs, Slam. They have some legal support, but I'm not going looking for links. Thanks for your links. (It would be nice to hear from you in general chat.) I have NOT read the actual decisions. And the Supreme Court's bubble ordinance on their own grounds bothers me. I worked at a Planned Parenthood clinic. 35 feet may be too much space, but the Supreme Court gets what, 250 feet? I know, many will say I'm changing the subject. I am, just making an observation.

Whoops. I just gave A-holes a pass: "Birth control failures are my reason for mentioning that men are also affected." But it was so important to me when I was younger. Many, MANY men don't give a damn or a thought to birth control. Education, education, education. and of course women need to take care of themselves, but also STAND UP and not be the only responsible party. It's women who are being discriminated against when birth control is limited in any way. I can't give you a full legal, moral, sociological explanation, but that's how I see it, as a sexually active and once fertile woman. Yay for tubal ligation.
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby Slamdunkpro » Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:47 pm

carla wrote:Women, and men involved with women, are being denied certain forms of birth control.

Lets stop right here. This isn't true, not in any way shape or form. Anyone can still get any form of birth control they want. If they work for Hobby Lobby they just can't get 4 of 20 FDA approved contraceptives with Hobby Lobby's money They're free to go buy them with their own money or to get a different insurance policy (through an Obamacare state exchange for example) that will provide it for them. No one is getting between a patient and their doctor.

No one, not the SCOTUS, Hobby Lobby, or the man in the moon is saying "You can't have this".
No Clicky Blind Linky's!
There is no problem that can’t be solved with a liberal application of sex, tequila, money, or high explosives, not necessarily in that order
I've been kissed by Pixie!
User avatar
Slamdunkpro
Fleet Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 5155
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby carla » Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:43 am

Slamdunkpro wrote: Lets stop right here. This isn't true, not in any way shape or form. Anyone can still get any form of birth control they want. If they work for Hobby Lobby they just can't get 4 of 20 FDA approved contraceptives with Hobby Lobby's money They're free to go buy them with their own money or to get a different insurance policy (through an Obamacare state exchange for example) that will provide it for them. No one is getting between a patient and their doctor. No one, not the SCOTUS, Hobby Lobby, or the man in the moon is saying "You can't have this".

I got it. You are correct. I believe I was the first person to specify these facts in this thread, if you read it.
You have not addressed the example of Triune, which does seek to cancel coverage of all contraceptives. You have not addressed the issue of the Supreme Court playing doctor.
The slippery slope possibility? We'll see.
(Totally biased: I hope this is an issue that strengthens liberal and non-religious votes in upcoming elections. Didn't conservatives once champion privacy?)

Some companies are sure trying to say "you can't have this"!

Oops, edit #2. Yes, I see you are saying they have a fall back, and that's a good thing. But why THIS exception? Does the employee have to go through hoops and paperwork to obtain the coverage from somewhere else, while the company pays HR personnel to do the same for those who don't request an IUD from their doctor?
It's uneven. It doesn't seem or look fair. I could go off in other directions... STD and genital cancer treatments, for instance.
Last edited by carla on Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby carla » Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:48 am

carla wrote:I got it. You are correct. I believe I was the first person to specify these facts in this thread, if you read it.


by carla » Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:25 pm
Not getting into the political discussion, and have only read basic news reports, but keep in mind these companies are objecting to IUD and emergency contraception. I can't cite a source right now, but believe they will cover mechanical and hormonal methods of birth control.

What I wrote on 6/30, quoted above, is currently true of Hobby Lobby.

I acknowledged the fact that I exploded and posted to a discussion that I said I would not get involved in.
"carla » Mon Jun 30, 2014 7:56 pm
I rescind my comment that I will not engage. :twisted:"
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby carla » Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:57 am

ABwannabe wrote:
ABwannabe wrote:For instance, policy concerning porn has to be spelled out before an employee can be fired for it.
I'm referring to laws lawsuits where a teacher has been fired for affairs, being on an adult website, etc. Many times, the fired teacher won the suit because there was no clear policy forbidding it.

How ironic. I worked for several years as a legal secretary and paralegal for a firm in California that specialized in dismissing tenured public school teachers for cause. We lost zero cases; all but a few were settled by retirement or the teacher/coach leaving the school. Yes, they were ALL reported to the CA Commission on Teacher Credentialing, over which we had no control. Many were reported to police, usually before we got involved. We set some minor precedents regarding statutes of limitations for victims/witnesses, though it's "only" administrative law, the level that would appeal to Superior Court. Oh, the stories I could tell. This was decades ago. Yes, there's a hell of a lot of sex between coaches and music teachers, especially, and students; a hell of a lot of "grooming"; and many burn-out and physical and mental illness cases who should not be teaching or around students.
I read, indexed and analyzed personnel files and wrote statements of charges under an attorney's guidance. We worked daily or weekly with principals to teach and support them in documenting the questionable or accused employees in a legally sound manner.
Admin doesn't know how to do it legally and/or doesn't have the will or time. It's a bear, it takes a year or two. It is admin's fault, and the law's fault! firing is much too difficult, and I do support lessening or deleting tenure protections in public schools. In what grade of elementary, middle or even high school do teacher needs tenure to protect their right to free speech?! They're just teaching for tests. Maybe in high school; I don't know. I did have several unique teachers in the 12 months or less that I spent there, one religious studies, one literature, one alternative education. Colleges and universities? Yes to tenure.

CA Education Code. You can see how broad some subsections of 44932 are:

44932. (a) No permanent employee shall be dismissed except for one or more of the following causes:
(1) Immoral or unprofessional conduct.
(2) Commission, aiding, or advocating the commission of acts of criminal syndicalism.
(3) Dishonesty.
(4) Unsatisfactory performance.
(5) Evident unfitness for service.
(6) Physical or mental condition unfitting him or her to instruct or associate with children.
(7) Persistent violation of or refusal to obey the school laws of the state or reasonable regulations prescribed...
(8) Conviction of a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude.
(9) Violation of Section 51530 or conduct specified in Section 1028 of the Government Code...
(10) Knowing membership by the employee in the Communist Party.
(11) Alcoholism or other drug abuse which makes the employee unfit to instruct or associate with children.
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby Slamdunkpro » Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:43 am

carla wrote:
Slamdunkpro wrote: Lets stop right here. This isn't true, not in any way shape or form. Anyone can still get any form of birth control they want. If they work for Hobby Lobby they just can't get 4 of 20 FDA approved contraceptives with Hobby Lobby's money They're free to go buy them with their own money or to get a different insurance policy (through an Obamacare state exchange for example) that will provide it for them. No one is getting between a patient and their doctor. No one, not the SCOTUS, Hobby Lobby, or the man in the moon is saying "You can't have this".

I got it. You are correct. I believe I was the first person to specify these facts in this thread, if you read it.
But based on your later posts you don't seem to understand them. (no offense)
You have not addressed the example of Triune, which does seek to cancel coverage of all contraceptives.
Based on the scope of the SCOTUS they will have to sue their way to the SCOTUS in order to get this it hasn't happened yet. Plus what you should be taking issue with is the democrat sponsored and democrat signed (Bill Clinton) RFRA. THIS is the law that created these loopholes.
You have not addressed the issue of the Supreme Court playing doctor.
Because they aren't. Once again, no one is saying "you can't have"
The slippery slope possibility? We'll see.
(Totally biased: I hope this is an issue that strengthens liberal and non-religious votes in upcoming elections. Didn't conservatives once champion privacy?)
And that's exactly what the democrats want. that's why they won't apply the simple administrative fix that was used for non-profits. They want women to "suffer". They want the issue to campaign with. And all the Obamabots are swallowing it hook line and sinker.
Some companies are sure trying to say "you can't have this"!
No, they're saying "We won't pay for" not "You can't have"
Oops, edit #2. Yes, I see you are saying they have a fall back, and that's a good thing. But why THIS exception? Does the employee have to go through hoops and paperwork to obtain the coverage from somewhere else, while the company pays HR personnel to do the same for those who don't request an IUD from their doctor?
Freedom works both ways.
It's uneven. It doesn't seem or look fair.
It's never "fair" when the left doesn't get everything they want
I could go off in other directions... STD and genital cancer treatments, for instance.
And that would be specious


Comments in red
No Clicky Blind Linky's!
There is no problem that can’t be solved with a liberal application of sex, tequila, money, or high explosives, not necessarily in that order
I've been kissed by Pixie!
User avatar
Slamdunkpro
Fleet Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 5155
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby Nitro » Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:43 pm

Norm357 wrote:
Nitro wrote:
ABwannabe wrote:I haven't had the time to read anything in depth. But, on the surface, I applaud the decision.

In my opinion, forcing a business -- particularly a "closely held" or "family run" business -- to act unethically (as the business defines ethics) is usually wrong*. I happen to think that forcing businesses to even provide insurance (and specifc, controversial insurance) is wrong. Businesses should be able to choose whether, and what form, of insurance they provide. And, frankly, I don't konw why an interstate free market of insurance companies is a bad idea, to make the offerings better. This is little different than forcing a business to match 401(k) offerings.

*obviously there *is* a line in allowing the business to define ethics. Child labor laws, etc. I happen to contend that this issue doesn't cross that line.


Birth control pills have been used for other medical purposes. Why should one person's prescribed medication be paid for, but another's not be? The court says this ruling doesn't apply to vaccines or blood transfusions, but should a company that provides health coverage be allowed to not allow those to be covered because they are against it? Should a company be able to cover an abortion if the life of the mother is at risk but not cover it in a rape because of how the owners beliefs are aligned?


Why do you believe that Hobby Lobby is not covering birth control? They are in fact covering 16 different kinds of birth control including the pill used for hormanal treatments.


I don't think this ruling is limited to these particular companies, and think that a company that doesn't want to cover birth control pills used for hormonal treatment would have a case under this ruling, which to me would be an issue, particularly if they covered something like testosterone replacement treatments for men.
User avatar
Nitro
Vice Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 2133
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 8:13 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby carla » Thu Jul 03, 2014 6:49 pm

I'm still reading this:

"In a decision that drew an unusually fierce dissent from the three female justices, the Supreme Court sided Thursday with religiously affiliated nonprofit groups in a clash between religious freedom and women’s rights.
The decision temporarily bars the government from enforcing against a Christian college part of the regulations that provide contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
At issue in the order, involving Wheaton College in Illinois, are federal forms that groups must fill out and send to their insurers and plan administrators as an alternate way to deliver free contraception to be offered to female workers under the Affordable Care Act."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/po ... .html?_r=0

I don't understand it; need more info. But I mentioned a burden above, in post of 7/2 10:43 p.m. Why don't men wanting Viagra or implants have to go through the same steps or be questioned about whether their sexual activity is for procreation?
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby carla » Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:03 pm

I agree with many of Slam's points of Jul 03, 2014 7:43 a.m.
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby okbye » Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:13 pm

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/ ... gbt-peopl/

Following the recent Hobby Lobby ruling, a group of religious leaders wrote a letter to President Obama on Tuesday asking to be exempt from a pending executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in hiring practices, reported The Atlantic.

“We are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need,” the letter says, according to The Atlantic.

The letter comes after Monday’s Supreme Court ruling, known as Hobby Lobby, that closely held corporations are permitted a religious exemption from providing birth control as stipulated in the Affordable Care Act.

The letters of the author are no strangers to the Obama administration, and some are even open supporters of the president. One of the letters signatories was Michael Wear, reported The Atlantic, who directed faith outreach for the White House in 2012, and two signers were members of Catholics for Obama and three are former members of the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Mr. Obama announced in June that his staff had drafted an executive order that would bar federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT people, though he has not signed such an order.

“Without a robust religious exemption,” they letter stated, according to Talking Points Memo, “this expansion of hiring rights will come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity and religious freedom.”
I don't mean to sound cold, cruel or vicious but I am so that's the way it comes out - Bill Hicks

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.“ Homer Simpson

Charlie Brooker: "What is the most complicated thing you do in your kitchen?"
David Mitchell: "Worry about death."
User avatar
okbye
Crazy Aunt
 
Posts: 14521
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 5:24 pm
Location: phoenix, az

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby carla » Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:28 pm

Atlantic article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ma/373853/

Interesting to view all this coverage while replacing "gay" or "woman" with "black."
I've been watching and reading so much archival and current historical material due to the anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. Atlantic second story of May is about school history, desegregation and economic re-segregation in Tuscaloosa.
Resistance isn't about damaging the country, but protecting it.
User avatar
carla
Admiral of the Briners
 
Posts: 12080
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Central CA

Re: Hobby Lobby decision

Postby Nitro » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:42 pm

Regarding LGBT rights, in Cincinnati it was legal to evict a tenant if you found out they were gay, had nothing to do with their behavior etc. Funny thing is companies that actively seek out to not hire gays likely have ended up hiring some anyway. They don't exactly have a gay endorsement on their ID. I knew a guy from church, his wife gave piano lessons and was the organist. Two kids. Yep, ended up finding out that he was actually gay.
User avatar
Nitro
Vice Admiral Briner
 
Posts: 2133
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 8:13 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Previous

Return to Poli-FRY

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron