People need to realize what "fairness" actually means.
I get it, its "fair" to mandate someone to pay for something for someone else, if you object, you hate women. Sounds like a chain-mail.
Healthcare includes sexual health as well, which includes women's sexual health as well as men's. After all, if you provide coverage for condoms you should be mandated to provide for birth control.
If you're wondering why it is necessary to do this then all you need to know is a healthier society is a better society.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there. It aint the heart of a creature that is bound in the way that God has set for it. You can find meanness in the least of creatures, but when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to tend it.”
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
People need to realize what "fairness" actually means.
I get it, its "fair" to mandate someone to pay for something for someone else, if you object, you hate women. Sounds like a chain-mail.
Healthcare includes sexual health as well, which includes women's sexual health as well as men's. After all, if you provide coverage for condoms you should be mandated to provide for birth control.
If you're wondering why it is necessary to do this then all you need to know is a healthier society is a better society.
I'm not a professional zoologist, but isn't an animal that can have kids healthier than an animal that can't, therefore birth control makes people less healthy?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: [leftovers from booster drafts]
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
People need to realize what "fairness" actually means.
I get it, its "fair" to mandate someone to pay for something for someone else, if you object, you hate women. Sounds like a chain-mail.
Healthcare includes sexual health as well, which includes women's sexual health as well as men's. After all, if you provide coverage for condoms you should be mandated to provide for birth control.
If you're wondering why it is necessary to do this then all you need to know is a healthier society is a better society.
I'm not a professional zoologist, but isn't an animal that can have kids healthier than an animal that can't, therefore birth control makes people less healthy?
Um. What does that have to do with what I said? Like, a fixed dog is pretty healthy.
Wait. Do.... do you not know how a humans sexual health differs from an animal's? I am honestly laughing a lot at the thought of that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there. It aint the heart of a creature that is bound in the way that God has set for it. You can find meanness in the least of creatures, but when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to tend it.”
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
I'm not a professional zoologist, but isn't an animal that can have kids healthier than an animal that can't, therefore birth control makes people less healthy?
Well you see the Plan B drugs don't prevent, they undo.
I hate the idea of insurance covering self-inflicted conditions myself, but what other kinds of conditions are there anymore? That's just what you're paying for when you pay for insurance. Unless you aren't.
"No big deal", yeah, tell that to all of the women that need birth control to live. Republicans have been waging war on women for some time now and there's going to be a huge backlash. And this does set a dangerous precedent: that corporations are people and can have religious beliefs, and force their beliefs on their employees. You're welcome to celebrate your religion however you wish, but the moment you deny someone the right to do something, whether it's two men getting married, or women needing birth control, or a woman needing an abortion, you are oppressing them. Gay marriage doesn't affect your marriage. You can't tell women what to do with their bodies.
Either you are blowing this up to way more of an issue than the ruling actually is, or you don't understand what actually got "ruled." Only 4 types of post fertilization contraceptives were involved in this ruling. This is NOT denying the women who work there access to any contraception. It is taking 4 specific drugs out of over 20 that are used after the act and saying, that the corporation does not have to provide it.
I do not understand where people get this idea that this is denying anything to anyone. Its merely saying that religious owners of a small business do not have to violate their faith to provide these 4 pills for free. There are many many other ways for women to go about getting access to these without trampling on the religious freedom of small business owners.
It's not likely that they will stop at these four contraceptives. Some of the SCOTUS judges that ruled in favor of HL even said it was about the "**** pills".
It's not likely that they will stop at these four contraceptives. Some of the SCOTUS judges that ruled in favor of HL even said it was about the "**** pills".
It's not likely that they will stop at these four contraceptives. Some of the SCOTUS judges that ruled in favor of HL even said it was about the "**** pills".
Citation?
All I am seeing that is actually using that term is dailykos.
Anyway, there is some truth in this (As there always is.) While the case in general was about the four methods HL objected to, the ruling made clear that a corporation could object to the ENTIRE mandate. Thus in theory, they could just say screw it and not cover any contraceptives.
Anyway, there is some truth in this (As there always is.) While the case in general was about the four methods HL objected to, the ruling made clear that a corporation could object to the ENTIRE mandate. Thus in theory, they could just say screw it and not cover any contraceptives.
Yes and no. A closely held company *can* choose not to provide contraceptive coverage if providing the coverage would violate their religious beliefs. Catholic companies would be an example of this matter. What they can't do is say "screw it, I don't have to provide anything because I don't believe in it". One of the key factors in this particular decision is that the companies decision not to give this coverage doesn't *actually* prevent the women from getting the coverage in any way. The government has already proved that there is a way to grant coverage to these women without it being provided by the company (see the religious exemption), and there's nothing stopping that from being applied to companies that object on religious grounds as well.
The next major case to be heard on this matter is going to be the Little Sisters of the Poor case, where the Catholic organization is refusing to sign the paper certifying that they will not provide the coverage because, in their view, signing the paper is tantamount to them performing an act that will give the coverage.
It's effectively one more step removed from actually giving coverage than hobby lobby was. My estimation is that the government will rule against little sisters of the poor, at least on the issue of whether being required to certify that they won't provide coverage is a violation of their religious liberty. The court may rebuke the size of the fines imposed by the HHS on little sisters of the poor for what is, essentially, not performing a rubber stamp clerical matter. We'll have to wait and see on that.
In the long game, what I expect to see with regards to the employer mandate in general is a gradual erosion of the coverage required by employers until we get to where we should have been in the first place - no coverage required by employers, but if they do provide coverage it must include X. There is no rational reason why health care needs to be tied to your employer other than thats the way it was done for most people before.
"No big deal", yeah, tell that to all of the women that need birth control to live. Republicans have been waging war on women for some time now and there's going to be a huge backlash. And this does set a dangerous precedent: that corporations are people and can have religious beliefs, and force their beliefs on their employees. You're welcome to celebrate your religion however you wish, but the moment you deny someone the right to do something, whether it's two men getting married, or women needing birth control, or a woman needing an abortion, you are oppressing them. Gay marriage doesn't affect your marriage. You can't tell women what to do with their bodies.
I think you're trying to force this decision into a neat little pigeonhole in the great evil-religion vs. secular-freedom conflict playing out in your mind. And in doing so, you're losing sight of the reality of the situation. Hobby Lobby is not forcing their beliefs onto anyone or denying people the right to do anything. We've already gone over this multiple times in the thread, so if you want a ton of explanation you can do some back-reading. But in brief, the position the Supreme Court upheld is that an employer should not be legally forced to pay for a treatment that violates their convictions. Hobby Lobby employees still absolutely have the right to seek out such treatment; they just don't have the right to ask Hobby Lobby to foot the bill. (And if a woman needs a "birth control" pill to live, then it's not a "birth control" pill anymore, is it? It's a completely different treatment that just happens to use the same drug, and ought not to be affected by this ruling.)
Imagine you have an employee - say, to mow your lawn. Imagine she is a born-again Christian, and wishes to get a tattoo with a cross and the inscription "One Man, One Woman" as an expression of her moral beliefs. Presumably you disagree with this sentiment, but she surely has a right to do it, and it's not going to affect her lawn-mowing effectiveness at all. So if you somehow tried to stop her by force from going to the tattoo parlor, you'd be denying her her right; you can't tell a woman what to do with her body. So far, so good. But now imagine she demands that you pay for the tattoo. When you say "no", are you still oppressing her? This is the question that the Supreme Court is addressing. Not the misogynist bogeyman you've conjured. (EDIT: And it's completely separate from the question of whether she can get a targeting tattoo for radiation therapy, even though it's also cross shaped.)
Here the supreme court got it right and said that congress cannot force the owners of tightly-held businesses to, in essence, stop practicing their religion.
I wonder how this will go for anything that isn't right-wing Christianity.
Probably well (i.e. other religions will get broad protections too). The original case that prompted congress to pass the RFRA was about someone who was fired from his job for religious use of Peyote.
Contraceptives aren't tattoos. They're a little more useful than that. The major problem that you're overlooking is that the company where someone happened to be able to find work is now able to deny part of the healthcare coverage based on their beliefs. When put into effect on a large scale this absolutely contributes to an environment in which women have less protections. This is only one step on the way to the right-wing goal of legal control of women's bodies.
How can a woman have less protection when they started with no protection at all?
I'm more concerned about what this means factually. The Supreme Court just ruled that if someone's religion says contraceptives cause abortions, then contraceptives cause abortion. Does this mean I get to start a wacky religion where aspirin cures cancer, then aspirin really will cure cancer?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
The Supreme Court just ruled that if someone's religion says contraceptives cause abortions, then contraceptives cause abortion.
No they didn't, and honestly that's an intentionally imbecilic reading of the case. In this thread it has been gone over extensively why this is wrong, but to sum it up (again):
The medical definition of abortion is irrelevant to the case, and there was no decision on it.
Hobby Lobby objects to any contraceptives that act in manner X, which Hobby Lobby defines as "abortificients". Hobby Lobby is using the term in an admittedly broader meaning than it's medical term. Hobby Lobby could have called them Gargleflatze's or Schnozzbergers and it would have made LITERALLY no difference in the outcome of the case.
The court ruled that Hobby Lobby is not required to pay for Gargleflatzes, because doing so would violate Hobby Lobbies freedom of religion under the RFRA.
The fact that Hobby Lobby called them "abortificients" instead of "gargleflatzes" has zero bearing on the case, and the court made absolutely no ruling on Hobby Lobby's definition of the term.
[quote from="Sourbubbles »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/450397-hobby-lobby-and-obamacare?comment=533"]You can't tell women what to do with their bodies.
They can and they do as it pertains to: suicide/attempted suicide, endangering other motorists, mental illness, imprisonment for various reasons, consumption of alcohol and other drugs both legal and illegal and of course, by taxing their labor. Among other things. Of course if you're a man, you have to sign up for selective service in the States. I'm not sure if feminists have bothered to catch up to that one yet but if they do, then women's bodies will be at the disposal of the state in a brand new way, as men already are.
You want to talk about forcing your beliefs on other people? Start there.
Unlike the examples above, the refusal of a business to pay for abortifacients involves no force whatever. Women are free to obtain them in numerous ways, including: 1) working for an employer whose values more closely mirror their own, 2) paying for them out of pocket, 3) seeking aid from the hundreds of millions of people across the country that share their values, including large charities and outspoken, enormously wealthy folks like (as I've recently learned) George Takei and Seth Rogen.
"No big deal", yeah, tell that to all of the women that need birth control to live. Republicans have been waging war on women for some time now and there's going to be a huge backlash. And this does set a dangerous precedent: that corporations are people and can have religious beliefs, and force their beliefs on their employees. You're welcome to celebrate your religion however you wish, but the moment you deny someone the right to do something, whether it's two men getting married, or women needing birth control, or a woman needing an abortion, you are oppressing them. Gay marriage doesn't affect your marriage. You can't tell women what to do with their bodies.
I think you're trying to force this decision into a neat little pigeonhole in the great evil-religion vs. secular-freedom conflict playing out in your mind. And in doing so, you're losing sight of the reality of the situation. Hobby Lobby is not forcing their beliefs onto anyone or denying people the right to do anything. We've already gone over this multiple times in the thread, so if you want a ton of explanation you can do some back-reading. But in brief, the position the Supreme Court upheld is that an employer should not be legally forced to pay for a treatment that violates their convictions. Hobby Lobby employees still absolutely have the right to seek out such treatment; they just don't have the right to ask Hobby Lobby to foot the bill. (And if a woman needs a "birth control" pill to live, then it's not a "birth control" pill anymore, is it? It's a completely different treatment that just happens to use the same drug, and ought not to be affected by this ruling.)
Imagine you have an employee - say, to mow your lawn. Imagine she is a born-again Christian, and wishes to get a tattoo with a cross and the inscription "One Man, One Woman" as an expression of her moral beliefs. Presumably you disagree with this sentiment, but she surely has a right to do it, and it's not going to affect her lawn-mowing effectiveness at all. So if you somehow tried to stop her by force from going to the tattoo parlor, you'd be denying her her right; you can't tell a woman what to do with her body. So far, so good. But now imagine she demands that you pay for the tattoo. When you say "no", are you still oppressing her? This is the question that the Supreme Court is addressing. Not the misogynist bogeyman you've conjured. (EDIT: And it's completely separate from the question of whether she can get a targeting tattoo for radiation therapy, even though it's also cross shaped.)
EDIT: It's not really a boogeyman when Republicans have been waging a war on women for some time now. Especially during when Romney was running for president, he said he wanted women to only have an abortion in case of incest, rape, etc. Then there's the defunding of planned parenthood and anti-abortion laws. They think that women only want birth control so they can have "consequence-free sex", but even if they did, what business is that of theirs? They also want to get rid of Obamacare for one of the reasons being that it covers birth control.
I talked about this more earlier, but essentially without birth control there is a large segment of the population that would have trouble working. The majority of women get ovarian cysts at some point, and smaller number of them get recurring cysts or serious cysts that cause excessive pain during menstruation or just whenever, and Birth control prevents that menstruation and helps prevent more cysts from being formed.
To accurately sum up what was discussed earlier in the thread, when it's used for a different purpose it is not birth control, and the reduced ability to conceive is a side effect. Birth control is one specific treatment regime of hormone therapy for the purpose of prevent conception.
The majority of people who oppose Birth Control, do not oppose hormone therapy in general.
For reference, see our discussion at posts #103-129.
The fact of the matter is that the moral objections are not to the pill itself, but to the treatment for the purposes of limiting an ability of a woman to concieve. The whole "but it has other uses" argument is a load of garbage.
[quote from="Sourbubbles »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/450397-hobby-lobby-and-obamacare?comment=533"]You can't tell women what to do with their bodies.
They can and they do as it pertains to: suicide/attempted suicide, endangering other motorists, mental illness, imprisonment for various reasons, consumption of alcohol and other drugs both legal and illegal and of course, by taxing their labor. Among other things. Of course if you're a man, you have to sign up for selective service in the States. I'm not sure if feminists have bothered to catch up to that one yet but if they do, then women's bodies will be at the disposal of the state in a brand new way, as men already are.
You want to talk about forcing your beliefs on other people? Start there.
Unlike the examples above, the refusal of a business to pay for abortifacients involves no force whatever. Women are free to obtain them in numerous ways, including: 1) working for an employer whose values more closely mirror their own, 2) paying for them out of pocket, 3) seeking aid from the hundreds of millions of people across the country that share their values, including large charities and outspoken, enormously wealthy folks like (as I've recently learned) George Takei and Seth Rogen.
</blockquote>
Nice cherrypicking and ignoring the rest of my post. You can't tell women that they can't have sex or take birth control for sexual health, which is essentially what HL is doing. Believe or not, because of the income inequality in this country, people working on minimum wage can't afford everything they need to live. That means some women can't afford birth control when they really need them. Planned Parenthood centers help with that but some of them have been closed down because of defunding or anti-abortion laws.
Also, just because feminists are focusing on some issues doesn't mean they're not concerned about others. I'm pretty sure people have already told you this in the feminism thread. All of the ones you mentioned are applicable to men. Men do not need birth control.
Also, prove to me that these contraceptives cause abortions, because it doesn't look like you read that link I posted about Plan B contraceptives.
I talked about this more earlier, but essentially without birth control there is a large segment of the population that would have trouble working. The majority of women get ovarian cysts at some point, and smaller number of them get recurring cysts or serious cysts that cause excessive pain during menstruation or just whenever, and Birth control prevents that menstruation and helps prevent more cysts from being formed.
To accurately sum up what was discussed earlier in the thread, when it's used for a different purpose it is not birth control, and the reduced ability to conceive is a side effect. Birth control is one specific treatment regime of hormone therapy for the purpose of prevent conception.
The majority of people who oppose Birth Control, do not oppose hormone therapy in general.
For reference, see our discussion at posts #103-129.
The fact of the matter is that the moral objections are not to the pill itself, but to the treatment for the purposes of limiting an ability of a woman to concieve. The whole "but it has other uses" argument is a load of garbage.
I was responding to the part where he said that if someone needs birth control to live, then it's not birth control. Anyway I edited my post to address the other point.
I was responding to the part where he said that if someone needs birth control to live, then it's not birth control. Anyway I edited my post to address the other point.
Just to make sure I'm understanding you, and not misinterpreting you... on that particualry point you appear to be agreeing with B_S. When its prescribed for another reason reduced ability to get pregnant is a side effect and its not "birth control"? Or am I misunderstanding you?
There is no rational reason why health care needs to be tied to your employer other than thats the way it was done for most people before.
Yes!
I can see why religious organisations object to providing coverage they disagree with - and as you say, it looks in principle like any X could be omitted from coverage if it conflicted with religious beliefs (although the judge specifically referenced vaccination - maybe there's some kind of public safety clause that could be invoked?). I can sympathise.
But I don't think the employers should be providing healthcare in the first case, partly because it can lead to conflicts like this, and partly because government-based healthcare just seems to be a more efficient model.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
I was responding to the part where he said that if someone needs birth control to live, then it's not birth control. Anyway I edited my post to address the other point.
Just to make sure I'm understanding you, and not misinterpreting you... on that particualry point you appear to be agreeing with B_S. When its prescribed for another reason reduced ability to get pregnant is a side effect and its not "birth control"? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Oh, yeah, I guess, I didn't read the part after his question. I thought I was answering it.
I've come to the conclussion that most of the liberals, incusing the POTUS, talking about this issue are loons who are incapbale of expressing a non-distorted, logically cohereant statement against this ruling.
Flame infraction! - Senori
Quote from White House »
President Obama believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves, rather than their bosses deciding for them.
Hobby Lobby is not making personal health care decisions for it's employees. Its not forcing them to have sex which incidently leads to the need for contraceptives and Its not preventing them from getting contraceptives or having sex. No choice is being made for employees. An employee does not get to decide whether or not a company provides insurance. In essesse they have it backwards...POTUS is trying to get employees/government to make religious and moral decisions for the companies.
“Today’s decision jeopardizes the health of women who are employed by these companies.”
Okay, so Hobby Lobby is not to make personal health care decisons for women but the supreme court/hobby lobby is somehow responsible for women making decisions to have sex and not buy or obtain certian kinds contraceptives before hand thereby jepordizing their health. I guess the white house fails to understand if they had not broken the law in the impelmentation of the ACA, these women would not be having these purported issues.
That’s why we’ve taken steps to ensure that no religious institution will have to pay or provide for contraceptive coverage. We’ve also made accommodations for non-profit religious organizations that object to contraception on religious grounds
This is where the government failed and failed hard. They obviously agree the contraceptives issues is entwined with 1st admendment issues except they attempted to exclude certain entities while including others. In other words, the government decided who or what gets relgious freedom from this law and who doesnt.
“But we believe that the owners of for-profit companies should not be allowed to assert their personal religious views to deny their employees federally mandated benefits.”
So POTUS belives he gets decide who gets relgious freedom and who doesnt and its seems to be the only metric he uses is profit. I've yet to see a compelling argument as to why profit should prelcude the same religious accomdations made to other coroporations.
I get it, its "fair" to mandate someone to pay for something for someone else, if you object, you hate women. Sounds like a chain-mail.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
It's quite disturbing that people actually think this way. :/
Edit: I did get the sarcasm
Healthcare includes sexual health as well, which includes women's sexual health as well as men's. After all, if you provide coverage for condoms you should be mandated to provide for birth control.
If you're wondering why it is necessary to do this then all you need to know is a healthier society is a better society.
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
I'm not a professional zoologist, but isn't an animal that can have kids healthier than an animal that can't, therefore birth control makes people less healthy?
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
Um. What does that have to do with what I said? Like, a fixed dog is pretty healthy.
Wait. Do.... do you not know how a humans sexual health differs from an animal's? I am honestly laughing a lot at the thought of that.
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
You said that since sexual health is important, health insurance should cover items that reduce sexual health. That is a non sequitor.
Also, humans differ from animals in the same way that Earth differs from planets.
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
Well you see the Plan B drugs don't prevent, they undo.
I hate the idea of insurance covering self-inflicted conditions myself, but what other kinds of conditions are there anymore? That's just what you're paying for when you pay for insurance. Unless you aren't.
Citation?
All I am seeing that is actually using that term is dailykos.
Anyway, there is some truth in this (As there always is.) While the case in general was about the four methods HL objected to, the ruling made clear that a corporation could object to the ENTIRE mandate. Thus in theory, they could just say screw it and not cover any contraceptives.
Come join us in the MTGSalvation chat ||| My trade thread. ||| My Personal Modern Blog: The Fetchlands
Right, me too. Which is why I asked for a citation, since he claimed that some of the SCOTUS justices were using the term.
Yes and no. A closely held company *can* choose not to provide contraceptive coverage if providing the coverage would violate their religious beliefs. Catholic companies would be an example of this matter. What they can't do is say "screw it, I don't have to provide anything because I don't believe in it". One of the key factors in this particular decision is that the companies decision not to give this coverage doesn't *actually* prevent the women from getting the coverage in any way. The government has already proved that there is a way to grant coverage to these women without it being provided by the company (see the religious exemption), and there's nothing stopping that from being applied to companies that object on religious grounds as well.
The next major case to be heard on this matter is going to be the Little Sisters of the Poor case, where the Catholic organization is refusing to sign the paper certifying that they will not provide the coverage because, in their view, signing the paper is tantamount to them performing an act that will give the coverage.
It's effectively one more step removed from actually giving coverage than hobby lobby was. My estimation is that the government will rule against little sisters of the poor, at least on the issue of whether being required to certify that they won't provide coverage is a violation of their religious liberty. The court may rebuke the size of the fines imposed by the HHS on little sisters of the poor for what is, essentially, not performing a rubber stamp clerical matter. We'll have to wait and see on that.
In the long game, what I expect to see with regards to the employer mandate in general is a gradual erosion of the coverage required by employers until we get to where we should have been in the first place - no coverage required by employers, but if they do provide coverage it must include X. There is no rational reason why health care needs to be tied to your employer other than thats the way it was done for most people before.
Imagine you have an employee - say, to mow your lawn. Imagine she is a born-again Christian, and wishes to get a tattoo with a cross and the inscription "One Man, One Woman" as an expression of her moral beliefs. Presumably you disagree with this sentiment, but she surely has a right to do it, and it's not going to affect her lawn-mowing effectiveness at all. So if you somehow tried to stop her by force from going to the tattoo parlor, you'd be denying her her right; you can't tell a woman what to do with her body. So far, so good. But now imagine she demands that you pay for the tattoo. When you say "no", are you still oppressing her? This is the question that the Supreme Court is addressing. Not the misogynist bogeyman you've conjured. (EDIT: And it's completely separate from the question of whether she can get a targeting tattoo for radiation therapy, even though it's also cross shaped.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Probably well (i.e. other religions will get broad protections too). The original case that prompted congress to pass the RFRA was about someone who was fired from his job for religious use of Peyote.
How can a woman have less protection when they started with no protection at all?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
On phasing:
No they didn't, and honestly that's an intentionally imbecilic reading of the case. In this thread it has been gone over extensively why this is wrong, but to sum it up (again):
The medical definition of abortion is irrelevant to the case, and there was no decision on it.
Hobby Lobby objects to any contraceptives that act in manner X, which Hobby Lobby defines as "abortificients". Hobby Lobby is using the term in an admittedly broader meaning than it's medical term. Hobby Lobby could have called them Gargleflatze's or Schnozzbergers and it would have made LITERALLY no difference in the outcome of the case.
The court ruled that Hobby Lobby is not required to pay for Gargleflatzes, because doing so would violate Hobby Lobbies freedom of religion under the RFRA.
The fact that Hobby Lobby called them "abortificients" instead of "gargleflatzes" has zero bearing on the case, and the court made absolutely no ruling on Hobby Lobby's definition of the term.
They can and they do as it pertains to: suicide/attempted suicide, endangering other motorists, mental illness, imprisonment for various reasons, consumption of alcohol and other drugs both legal and illegal and of course, by taxing their labor. Among other things. Of course if you're a man, you have to sign up for selective service in the States. I'm not sure if feminists have bothered to catch up to that one yet but if they do, then women's bodies will be at the disposal of the state in a brand new way, as men already are.
You want to talk about forcing your beliefs on other people? Start there.
Unlike the examples above, the refusal of a business to pay for abortifacients involves no force whatever. Women are free to obtain them in numerous ways, including: 1) working for an employer whose values more closely mirror their own, 2) paying for them out of pocket, 3) seeking aid from the hundreds of millions of people across the country that share their values, including large charities and outspoken, enormously wealthy folks like (as I've recently learned) George Takei and Seth Rogen.
Birth control pills aren't just for sex. They're also for ovarian cysts and ovarian cancer, as well as other things.
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/hobby-lobby-birth-control_n_5543903.html
EDIT: It's not really a boogeyman when Republicans have been waging a war on women for some time now. Especially during when Romney was running for president, he said he wanted women to only have an abortion in case of incest, rape, etc. Then there's the defunding of planned parenthood and anti-abortion laws. They think that women only want birth control so they can have "consequence-free sex", but even if they did, what business is that of theirs? They also want to get rid of Obamacare for one of the reasons being that it covers birth control.
I'm not sure how that is even remotely responsive to what B_S said, but in response to your "point":
Nice cherrypicking and ignoring the rest of my post. You can't tell women that they can't have sex or take birth control for sexual health, which is essentially what HL is doing. Believe or not, because of the income inequality in this country, people working on minimum wage can't afford everything they need to live. That means some women can't afford birth control when they really need them. Planned Parenthood centers help with that but some of them have been closed down because of defunding or anti-abortion laws.
Also, just because feminists are focusing on some issues doesn't mean they're not concerned about others. I'm pretty sure people have already told you this in the feminism thread. All of the ones you mentioned are applicable to men. Men do not need birth control.
Also, prove to me that these contraceptives cause abortions, because it doesn't look like you read that link I posted about Plan B contraceptives.
Just to make sure I'm understanding you, and not misinterpreting you... on that particualry point you appear to be agreeing with B_S. When its prescribed for another reason reduced ability to get pregnant is a side effect and its not "birth control"? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Yes!
I can see why religious organisations object to providing coverage they disagree with - and as you say, it looks in principle like any X could be omitted from coverage if it conflicted with religious beliefs (although the judge specifically referenced vaccination - maybe there's some kind of public safety clause that could be invoked?). I can sympathise.
But I don't think the employers should be providing healthcare in the first case, partly because it can lead to conflicts like this, and partly because government-based healthcare just seems to be a more efficient model.
Flame infraction! - Senori
Hobby Lobby is not making personal health care decisions for it's employees. Its not forcing them to have sex which incidently leads to the need for contraceptives and Its not preventing them from getting contraceptives or having sex. No choice is being made for employees. An employee does not get to decide whether or not a company provides insurance. In essesse they have it backwards...POTUS is trying to get employees/government to make religious and moral decisions for the companies.
Okay, so Hobby Lobby is not to make personal health care decisons for women but the supreme court/hobby lobby is somehow responsible for women making decisions to have sex and not buy or obtain certian kinds contraceptives before hand thereby jepordizing their health. I guess the white house fails to understand if they had not broken the law in the impelmentation of the ACA, these women would not be having these purported issues.
This is where the government failed and failed hard. They obviously agree the contraceptives issues is entwined with 1st admendment issues except they attempted to exclude certain entities while including others. In other words, the government decided who or what gets relgious freedom from this law and who doesnt.
So POTUS belives he gets decide who gets relgious freedom and who doesnt and its seems to be the only metric he uses is profit. I've yet to see a compelling argument as to why profit should prelcude the same religious accomdations made to other coroporations.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.