The war on women marches on!
- Thread starter GMM
- Start date
In the day to day world, this ruling is much more talked about than the effect it takes (as we are talking a pretty small number).
However, both Alito and Ginsberg wrote in their opinions about the doors it may open up. Alito defended the ruling and says other things don't apply, but it's hard to see how they don't. If a company's leadership doesn't believe in things like immunizations, blood transfusions, etc., do those apply to being withheld as well?
However, both Alito and Ginsberg wrote in their opinions about the doors it may open up. Alito defended the ruling and says other things don't apply, but it's hard to see how they don't. If a company's leadership doesn't believe in things like immunizations, blood transfusions, etc., do those apply to being withheld as well?
If a company's leadership doesn't believe in things like immunizations, blood transfusions, etc., do those apply to being withheld as well?
They should. Just as you should not be forced by government to purchase something that has nothing to do with the government (i.e. a driver's license...EDIT: I meant car insurance..... to operate a vehicle on public roads) employer's should not be forced by the government to purchase consumer products for their employees.
This post was edited on 6/30 2:40 PM by GMM
They should. Just as you should not be forced by government to purchase something that has nothing to do with the government (i.e. a driver's license...EDIT: I meant car insurance..... to operate a vehicle on public roads) employer's should not be forced by the government to purchase consumer products for their employees.
This post was edited on 6/30 2:40 PM by GMM
You boys have missed the broader picture and this simply went over Ginsberg's head. This is a narrow ruling on PRIVATETLY held corporations (Hobby Lobby is privately/family owned). Freedom of expression/religion must not be muzzled on individuals as this family spoke for what they believe-right, wrong or indifferent. If this were a publicly traded entity such as AT&T, Lilly etc. I could see another outcome. I laugh at the "war on women" talk. Is this a Democratic slogan? Did Bill Clinton have a war on his "girls/women"? Lest you think I care about EITHER side think again. I dislike BOTH parties although yes, I lean right. BTW, why shouldn't employer health insurance be taxed? It is tangible economic benefit and many don't have it. Why should we even have corporations give health insurance-yeah I know how it evolved but why should it be part of our social fabric when so many can't be a part of it?
This post was edited on 6/30 7:29 PM by threeeputtt
This post was edited on 6/30 7:29 PM by threeeputtt
It doesn't matter if its a large or small company, or a privately or publicly held company, the government does not have the constitutional authority to force businesses to pay for something they don't want to pay for.
BTW, why shouldn't employer health insurance be taxed?
Are you serious? You want to further complicate the tax code? You want us to pay MORE taxes?
Why should we even have corporations give health insurance-yeah I know
how it evolved but why should it be part of our social fabric when so
many can't be a part of it?
Because it was a step along the way to socialized medicine. People had to be "fundamentally transformed" from being independent to being dependent. The more somebody else pays for your stuff the less resistance there will be to ever-increasing government control.
BTW, why shouldn't employer health insurance be taxed?
Are you serious? You want to further complicate the tax code? You want us to pay MORE taxes?
Why should we even have corporations give health insurance-yeah I know
how it evolved but why should it be part of our social fabric when so
many can't be a part of it?
Because it was a step along the way to socialized medicine. People had to be "fundamentally transformed" from being independent to being dependent. The more somebody else pays for your stuff the less resistance there will be to ever-increasing government control.
almost all rulings
are "narrow" rulings in that general courts rule on the case in front of them.
Yes, the majority tried real hard to say "this is narrow" but it still set a precedent. Bush v. Gore was supposed to only apply to that case, but it's been cited plenty for precedent since then.
A corporation is not an individual. The whole point of corporations was to remove individual liability by creating a fictional entity. If you are going to give corporations speech and religious rights, then get rid of the "veil" protecting the individual members from liability. You want the benefit, take the consequences.
So no, nothing went over Ginsberg's head. She is rightly concerned about the precedent set, and how this "narrow" ruling can evolve in the future.
are "narrow" rulings in that general courts rule on the case in front of them.
Yes, the majority tried real hard to say "this is narrow" but it still set a precedent. Bush v. Gore was supposed to only apply to that case, but it's been cited plenty for precedent since then.
A corporation is not an individual. The whole point of corporations was to remove individual liability by creating a fictional entity. If you are going to give corporations speech and religious rights, then get rid of the "veil" protecting the individual members from liability. You want the benefit, take the consequences.
So no, nothing went over Ginsberg's head. She is rightly concerned about the precedent set, and how this "narrow" ruling can evolve in the future.
Wow.
That thought on car insurance may be the most bizarre thought I've read from you.
We might as well just shut the government down completely if you don't think they should regulate the requirements of driving cars on public roadways.
Re: almost all rulings
LOL at the debate here. Some are saying letting Hobby Lobby have it's way sets a precedent thus an exclusion. How about Obama setting aside setting aside major parts of the law for 1, 2 and 3 years?
On taxing the insurance. It IS A BIG benefit to me. About $10,000 a year that I would have to pay out of my pocket. I don't want to pay more but, part of the problem with this country is: So many things are FREE-food stamps, Medicaid etc! Someone has to pay.
LOL at the debate here. Some are saying letting Hobby Lobby have it's way sets a precedent thus an exclusion. How about Obama setting aside setting aside major parts of the law for 1, 2 and 3 years?
On taxing the insurance. It IS A BIG benefit to me. About $10,000 a year that I would have to pay out of my pocket. I don't want to pay more but, part of the problem with this country is: So many things are FREE-food stamps, Medicaid etc! Someone has to pay.
I see
so your response to my post is to switch topics? Yes, it sets a precedent. Before there was never a ruling that any type of corporation had religious rights of any kind, now, there is. that's a precedent.
If folks don't like Obama setting aside parts of the law, they could/can challenge that. Didn't happen, in part because I think folks knew that wasn't going to go anywhere, in part because several of the things he set aside at one point or another republicans actually ASKED him to do (then berated him later for doing it when he did it). Of course, if the republicans had been invested in fix rather than repeal perhaps some compromise could have been had.
Discussing food stamps and medicaid are two completely separate topics.
so your response to my post is to switch topics? Yes, it sets a precedent. Before there was never a ruling that any type of corporation had religious rights of any kind, now, there is. that's a precedent.
If folks don't like Obama setting aside parts of the law, they could/can challenge that. Didn't happen, in part because I think folks knew that wasn't going to go anywhere, in part because several of the things he set aside at one point or another republicans actually ASKED him to do (then berated him later for doing it when he did it). Of course, if the republicans had been invested in fix rather than repeal perhaps some compromise could have been had.
Discussing food stamps and medicaid are two completely separate topics.
Re: I see
I didn't change subjects. I was discussing both from a previous post. Oh well.
So, now you don't like the Judicial system & it's ruling? Is the ruling "activist"? You are supposed to apply the law, not set it aside. I don't care if the ACA wasn't challenged. Hobby Lobby wanted relief and they got it be it a corporation, proprietorship or partnership. BTW, I still don't care for either party. We are acting more and more like our corrupt neighbors (Mexico) to the south in behavior. Corruption and $$$ flows from both.
On insurance which is related to the overall subject and court ruling. There is simply no FREE lunch. The issue is who is going to pay, some one will. THAT will always be and an endless one of who. I am not opposed to helping people that are less fortunate however, the tipping point has already been passed when 48%+ are getting some kind of aid. I am old enough I don't sweat it. Those less than 50 will see a much different America. It is coming. I will likely be pushing tulips up.
I do enjoy reading everyone's viewpoint at the same time we aren't going to be changing many opinions. I still chuckle with the name "War on women". That is similar to saying "when did you quit beating your wife". Most don't willingly beat their wives (unless they are mentally off) and most don't want to deny women their day. Or, perhaps you didn't like my comment on including Clinton and his behavior with women (which I ignore, as the REAL issue with him was his perjury for which he lost his license to practice law).
This post was edited on 7/1 6:12 PM by threeeputtt
I didn't change subjects. I was discussing both from a previous post. Oh well.
So, now you don't like the Judicial system & it's ruling? Is the ruling "activist"? You are supposed to apply the law, not set it aside. I don't care if the ACA wasn't challenged. Hobby Lobby wanted relief and they got it be it a corporation, proprietorship or partnership. BTW, I still don't care for either party. We are acting more and more like our corrupt neighbors (Mexico) to the south in behavior. Corruption and $$$ flows from both.
On insurance which is related to the overall subject and court ruling. There is simply no FREE lunch. The issue is who is going to pay, some one will. THAT will always be and an endless one of who. I am not opposed to helping people that are less fortunate however, the tipping point has already been passed when 48%+ are getting some kind of aid. I am old enough I don't sweat it. Those less than 50 will see a much different America. It is coming. I will likely be pushing tulips up.
I do enjoy reading everyone's viewpoint at the same time we aren't going to be changing many opinions. I still chuckle with the name "War on women". That is similar to saying "when did you quit beating your wife". Most don't willingly beat their wives (unless they are mentally off) and most don't want to deny women their day. Or, perhaps you didn't like my comment on including Clinton and his behavior with women (which I ignore, as the REAL issue with him was his perjury for which he lost his license to practice law).
This post was edited on 7/1 6:12 PM by threeeputtt
what?
I said nothing about "the judicial system." I said this ruling set a precedent. No I don't agree with this ruling, that has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with the "judicial system."
As far as "activist." That's used when the court comes up with a decision you didn't like, when they come up with a decision you do like, then they were just following the Constitution.
I said nothing about "the judicial system." I said this ruling set a precedent. No I don't agree with this ruling, that has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with the "judicial system."
As far as "activist." That's used when the court comes up with a decision you didn't like, when they come up with a decision you do like, then they were just following the Constitution.
Re: what?
Great definition of activist! What got me going was the title: "War on women". As if certain people are against "old people" or "War on the poor" or "don't care about pollution." To be sure a small smattering of our populace qualify for such labeling the slogans themselves are cliches and meaningless.
Great definition of activist! What got me going was the title: "War on women". As if certain people are against "old people" or "War on the poor" or "don't care about pollution." To be sure a small smattering of our populace qualify for such labeling the slogans themselves are cliches and meaningless.
You're misinterpreting my statement. I'm saying that situations where the government has a legitimate role, like on public property, i.e. roads, then its reasonable to make requirements for you and anybody else. On the other hand employment has nothing to do with the government so they should stay out of it. Not to mention there's no constitutional authority for the federal government to force you to buy car insurance.
Ok. So you have no problem with forced car insurance. Your statement sounded like the opposite to me.
Contraceptives, unless used for medical treatments for specific reasons, are not drugs for medical care. Rather they are a luxury drug that is a reflection of lifestyle choices. The US government does not have the right to tell corporations they need to be involved in their employees' bedroom. These are not cancer drugs, cardiac medications, they are simply stopping people from making babies that love to get down.
Furthermore, BC is very cheap compared to the life saving meds on the market. Birth control is a reflexion of lifestyle choices, not the medical welfare of our society.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]
Furthermore, BC is very cheap compared to the life saving meds on the market. Birth control is a reflexion of lifestyle choices, not the medical welfare of our society.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]
BC is not a "medical" treatment - it's considered a preventative method. When most people hear it, they think single women sleeping around. It's very much a married couples issue, probably more so than single people (most married couples are not going to use condoms). In the long run, it saves on medical costs if someone who was not trying to get pregnant did happen to. Birth control pills/patches are more effective than condoms as well.
Re: right
What makes you or the US government the arbiters of whether poor people, or anyone else for that matter, has children or not?
What makes you or the US government the arbiters of whether poor people, or anyone else for that matter, has children or not?
Re: helps
You're slicing it pretty thin, man.
Anytime the government gets involved in these kinds of issues, "helping" just becomes a synonym for "being an arbiter". The government will try to put its own agenda and slant on the "help". In the case of the current government, it will be to promote its liberal slant, starting with indoctrination at the grade school level.
You're slicing it pretty thin, man.
Anytime the government gets involved in these kinds of issues, "helping" just becomes a synonym for "being an arbiter". The government will try to put its own agenda and slant on the "help". In the case of the current government, it will be to promote its liberal slant, starting with indoctrination at the grade school level.
nope
nothing thin here. You have the same folks who want to restrict abortion rights because it's so horrible who then also want to restrict the availability to get contraception. In both cases, the folks who have the money will find ways around both, the folks that don't won't. Those folks will end up having more children, and then the very folks who made it harder for them to have an abortion OR to get contraception cheaply will lambaste them for having too many kids and going on welfare/food stamps.
Of course, if you are one of those government is evil folks then yeah I'd guess you'd see a thin slice.
nothing thin here. You have the same folks who want to restrict abortion rights because it's so horrible who then also want to restrict the availability to get contraception. In both cases, the folks who have the money will find ways around both, the folks that don't won't. Those folks will end up having more children, and then the very folks who made it harder for them to have an abortion OR to get contraception cheaply will lambaste them for having too many kids and going on welfare/food stamps.
Of course, if you are one of those government is evil folks then yeah I'd guess you'd see a thin slice.
Re: helps
You're taking it to the extreme.
The government getting involved = the government forcing women to be on birth control.
It has to do with health care coverage covering basic items, if someone chooses to use them. By your logic, we should be self-policing if the government shouldn't be involved because they're slanted on public safety.
You're taking it to the extreme.
The government getting involved = the government forcing women to be on birth control.
It has to do with health care coverage covering basic items, if someone chooses to use them. By your logic, we should be self-policing if the government shouldn't be involved because they're slanted on public safety.
Re: nope
I've never said government is evil. I believe "limited government" is the best course, including providing for the common, national defense, building and upkeeping national infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.).
What I have more trouble with is government getting involved in promoting a social agenda.
I've never said government is evil. I believe "limited government" is the best course, including providing for the common, national defense, building and upkeeping national infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.).
What I have more trouble with is government getting involved in promoting a social agenda.
let me show you something
The link shows what happened over a five year period after Colorado introduced a state initiative to lower teen birth rates by providing low or no cost contraception.
35 percent drops in the teen birth rate in the counties were this program was introduced.
At least some of those teen births would have resulted in abortions. A large chunk of the ones that went to term would likely add to the cost to society in WIC/food stamps/welfare because teen parents/moms generally aren't swimming in money and the "social agenda" of having kids who have food tends to be something even most libertarians see wisdom in.
Put down the Rand, the idea that government is only involved in a few things is as bad an idea as communism where it's involved in everything.
contraception lowers birth rates
The link shows what happened over a five year period after Colorado introduced a state initiative to lower teen birth rates by providing low or no cost contraception.
35 percent drops in the teen birth rate in the counties were this program was introduced.
At least some of those teen births would have resulted in abortions. A large chunk of the ones that went to term would likely add to the cost to society in WIC/food stamps/welfare because teen parents/moms generally aren't swimming in money and the "social agenda" of having kids who have food tends to be something even most libertarians see wisdom in.
Put down the Rand, the idea that government is only involved in a few things is as bad an idea as communism where it's involved in everything.
contraception lowers birth rates
Re: nope
First off, we're well past that. Medicare has provided support for a lot of "social" related agendas for decades. Making something an OPTION is not promoting a social agenda. It's giving someone an option if they choose to. I have a lot of health benefits that are an option but I don't choose to utilize them. Should a corporation be involved in promoting a social agenda to employees? Let's face it, it's not like a lot of people work where they work cause they believe in the company, what they do, etc. - most people don't have the option of picking and choosing their jobs that strictly, especially in smaller/less populated areas.
First off, we're well past that. Medicare has provided support for a lot of "social" related agendas for decades. Making something an OPTION is not promoting a social agenda. It's giving someone an option if they choose to. I have a lot of health benefits that are an option but I don't choose to utilize them. Should a corporation be involved in promoting a social agenda to employees? Let's face it, it's not like a lot of people work where they work cause they believe in the company, what they do, etc. - most people don't have the option of picking and choosing their jobs that strictly, especially in smaller/less populated areas.
what federal requirement?
From your post:
Not to mention there's no constitutional authority for the federal government to force you to buy car insurance.
Maybe that is why there is no federal requirement regarding car insurance.
This is a state by state requirement.
From your post:
Not to mention there's no constitutional authority for the federal government to force you to buy car insurance.
Maybe that is why there is no federal requirement regarding car insurance.
This is a state by state requirement.
Re: nope
"We're well past that". I call bullsheiss. Obamacare was crammed down the throats of American citizens on a strictly partisan vote. Not one Republican voted for this gargantuan entitlement program, of which the majority of Americans dislike (then in 2008 and even moreso now after they've seen the impacts.)
Obamacare is definitely a 'social agenda" and one that did not have to happen, and wouldn't have happened if not for the left's chichanery. There is no option - except to pay a fine (I'm sorry, a tax.)
This post was edited on 7/8 3:57 PM by SDBoiler1
"We're well past that". I call bullsheiss. Obamacare was crammed down the throats of American citizens on a strictly partisan vote. Not one Republican voted for this gargantuan entitlement program, of which the majority of Americans dislike (then in 2008 and even moreso now after they've seen the impacts.)
Obamacare is definitely a 'social agenda" and one that did not have to happen, and wouldn't have happened if not for the left's chichanery. There is no option - except to pay a fine (I'm sorry, a tax.)
This post was edited on 7/8 3:57 PM by SDBoiler1
Re: nope
Chicanery? The debate was on C-Span for all to see wasn't it? Ooops, I guess that was another lie. The funny thing is, I don't think anyone has still read it. In the past month another 1300 pages of regulations have been added to the past several years of interpretations/regs.
Chicanery? The debate was on C-Span for all to see wasn't it? Ooops, I guess that was another lie. The funny thing is, I don't think anyone has still read it. In the past month another 1300 pages of regulations have been added to the past several years of interpretations/regs.
Just to be clear, it isn't like Hobby Lobby was not covering birth control in general - it was some specific forms that would occur after the formation of an embryo. I do think that contraception is largely non-essential and more lifestyle. I also think that the free market could easily handle this and if having a specific type of contraception covered is critical to you, don't elect to work at Hobby Lobby.
