Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 256 of total 256 in this topic |
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jul 1, 2014 - 06:23am PT
|
A thread for women's rights and stuff like that. (Post positivity too!)
Doesn't fit into any existing thread.
|
|
sandstone conglomerate
climber
sharon conglomerate central
|
|
SCOTUS making decisions based on fairy tales. Unreal.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
Typical. In Japan the scenario was that birth control pills were not available until a few years ago, the government's argument being that they were unsafe. Abortion however was, and the average Japanese woman had had almost three of those. The difference? Doctors made a lot more money off of abortions than pills.
Then Viagra came along and that was cleared by the government in less than six months.Even in Japan, that was a little too much hypocrisy, so after women's organizations protested, the government finally allowed birth control pills.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Religion's fine as long as it doesn't supercede federal law.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
No, place the blame on male chauvinism where it belongs. Religion had absolutely nothing to do with the stance of the Japanese government.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Bull. Maybe there, but here it carries tremendous influence.
As to women, my better half is all for equality. And we'll be raising our daughter to be strong and independent.
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
Religious people suck.
Yup. And they're more dangerous than other religious freaks like the Taliban, because they're already in this country and they're already influencing policy.
Yes, christians are more dangerous than crazy fanatical islamists, and christians constitute a very real threat to America.
|
|
fluffy
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
Probably has something to do with $$ too DMT
Certainly those justices were paid for, to a large extent, by corporations.
Fcuk a partisan Supreme Court
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
It has its place. That place is not telling everyone else how to live.
|
|
Flip Flop
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
When can we start discriminating against religious people based on the fact that they are clearly insane. Imaginary friends? Gods book of lies? Fancy creation mythology? Authoritarian rule books written by angry slavers. C'mon! Any set of religious beliefs is a crazy fantasy if viewed with discrimination. Willfull ignorance and anti-intellect as a governing theology! C'mon!
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
On the other hand, the religion of the Left is a pervasive government that controls our lives and thoughts.
You're living in a different millenium. Maybe that's how it used to be last century, but nowadays...
The Left is champion of individual freedom and individual rights.
The Right is the voice of fanatical religious ideology and the substitution of religious laws for Constitutional rights.
|
|
mcreel
climber
Barcelona
|
|
On the other hand, the religion of the Left is a pervasive government that controls our lives and thoughts.
It would be cool if that were true!
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
Regardless of your ideology or political preferences....
The bottom line is that supreme court now permits discrimination against women. Men do not suffer at all from the ruling.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
What if said corporation doesnt believe in any healthcare at all? Then what? Do we protect that too?
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
To start with the statements on the op are completely at odds with the facts.
First of all, Hobby Lobby (really the family that owns it) had no problem with birth control coverage, it was paying for abortions that they objected too. (both surgical and chemically induced)
Second, the courts made the distinction between a closely held corporation, that really is no different than a sole proprietorship and a publicly traded company.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Slippery slope? Nah... doesn't exist, per other thread topics. So says the liberal left. Try not to use that argument here, eh? Thanks.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Oh goody! Next time you (or anyone else) tells me there's no slippery slope in gun control, can I point back at your post above and assure them it does, indeed, exist just as much as the slippery slope in healthcare denial that you're proclaiming here? That would just be ubercool!
Now, carry on with telling me how my logic is faulty and i'm an idiot. You know you want to.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
To start with the statements on the op are completely at odds with the facts.
First of all, Hobby Lobby (really the family that owns it) had no problem with birth control coverage, it was paying for abortions that they objected too. (both surgical and chemically induced)
Second, the courts made the distinction between a closely held corporation, that really is no different than a sole proprietorship and a publicly traded company.
So, the taxpayers end up picking up the slack. If that's the case, then we need universal health care.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Oh right, I forgot. We were bellyaching over the trumping of equality and women's rights by fanatical religios BS, in favor of corporate america.
Weren't we also supposed to be celebrating the strong woman role model or something? My buddy's wife just got her CA CCW, and my better half plans on joining her group of girls she meets for coffee to do the same here in NV. Now, my girl is often accused of being super green/liberal, but I guess people can learn to compromise. That, and you could say they're treading upon a world mostly comprised of old conservative white guys. Yay girl power!
Except we shouldn't compromise to allow discrimination based on individual religious beliefs when it comes to corporate conduct.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Condoms fail, and plenty of people are allergic to latex. But then, abstinence shouldn't be such a big deal either, right?
What next, you going to tell us Hobby Lobby can deny employment of single unwed mothers because they think that's immoral too?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
I see that the comrades are celebrating, as usual, all government intrusion in their lives as good and just. But isn't this SCOTUS ruling really just a celebration of ignorance and a denial of Thomas Malthus' rightness?
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
I own a small company, I have an absolute sincere moral objection to my taxes being used to fund a war that killed more than 100,000 innocent civilians, how come I have to pay for those murders?
Scumbags, the lot of them, from 5/9ths of SCOTUS to the Hobby Lobby hypocrites.
TE
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
If a woman detests Catholicism, hates its creed of anti-abortion and stance on birth control, why would she choose employment in a family owned company, owned by Catholics? Why should the Catholic owners be told by the Feds they must provide birth control, or lose their business?
You can hate religion but you should respect the law, and the law protects religion in this country.
How about the religion of the actual person affected, the employee? This allows the employer to impose their religious will upon someone else. They specify what method of birth control is going to be allowed. That means that the employer is now coming into the exam room with the physician and patient, and controlling the discussion and decisions.
But there is a lot more to this decision. It did NOT find the ACA provision unConstitutional, as many conservatives are claiming. No. It based the decision on a previous law, signed into law by Clinton, the Restore Religion act.
When you pass a law that is in conflict with an earlier law, is that not how we amend a law? Has SCOTUS now taken away the power of the Congress to amend laws that SCOTUS favors???
In the ruling, it applauds "sincerely held" beliefs, such as Hobby Lobby's in this case, but that it would NOT apply to such things as vaccine denial, or blood transfusion.
In the example of blood transfusion, that is squarely taking aim at Christian Scientists. Don't they "Sincerely hold" those beliefs????
So now SCOTUS is choosing WHICH religion's beliefs it considers "legitimate", and which it does not.....and THAT is a direct violation of the first amendment.
The good news is that this action is very unlikely to affect many people, if any. But it is a direct shot over the bow of how conservatives think of women....which is property, to be told what to do in their lives by their Masters. Probably worth 100,000 votes or more.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Second, the courts made the distinction between a closely held corporation, that really is no different than a sole proprietorship and a publicly traded company.
Looks like that one went over most (all?) posters' heads.
If you don't understand the above, and you still have a strong belief that the USSC is giving all the power to "corporations," I'd say either educate yourself a little more, or just have a another beer (or latte or whatever you like) and don't worry about any of this stuff, cuz you really don't have a clue.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
...the courts made the distinction between a closely held corporation, that really is no different than a sole proprietorship and a publicly traded company....
Looks like that one went over most (all?) posters' heads.
yet there were 4 justices on the dissent who apparently did not feel that this was an important enough distinction to rule with the majority.
did it go over their heads too?
take two beers and post in the morning...
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Who is actually against contraception in real life?
I don't know, but I'm against forcing employers to pay for their employees' contraception.
I know it's pretty much impossible to change the standard libtard world view on pretty much anything, but try to take a step back and ask yourself why an employer should be forced to be in the business of paying for employees' contraception (instead of paying a salary, which the employees can spend as they choose).
And why would something we call "insurance" pay for contraception in the first place?
The purchase of contraception has virtually nothing in common with what the word "insurance" really means, or at least used to: where people pool together money to collectively assume risk for somewhat unlikely events that would be difficult for the insured to pay for directly.
Calling the the purchase of contraception something that should be paid for by "insurance" makes about as much sense as requiring "health care" to pay for food. (Actually food would be more logical as it's really not elective.)
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Our constitution has several flaws in it when it comes to the proper implementation of government. It is fairly well constructed to protect people from the abuse of government powers. Also well constructed for military defense against outside powers. Decent in it's protections vs natural occuring powers ie natural disasters
Some severe flaws unfortunately due to it's 200 year old nature
It is not so well constructed to protect people from abuses by other powerful entities within society. Corporations and employers. It is so inept against these powers that it has been mostly taken over by them.
There is now a form of fascism very pervasive in this nation. It is fortunately somewhat limited by the constitution as to what it can do to our citizens but it is basically fascism light. Without some of the well designed constitutional protections still in place it would rapidly become full blown.
5 of our Justices ascribe to this basically fascist ideology and continue to rewrite the limits of the constitution in keeping with two basic tenets.. "moral" codes designed to enslave and deferment to corporate power.
--
What allows all this to happen is a public that does not seriously consider what the proper purpose of government even is. For most government just "is" and they gripe and complain about some specific issue or a specific party, never even considering what the real problems are. Distracted and confused by a Media that is a cornerstone of the powers against them.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
It's not as if a woman can just walk into the County Health Department, get reproductive medical services, and walk out with all kinds of contraception - including a prescription for The Pill, or "Plan-B" - all for no cost to her.
Wait a minute. She can. At least here in San Bernardino County she can.
http://www.sbcounty.gov/dph/publichealth/programs_services/clinic_operations/reproductive_health_services.asp
Why Obama feels the need to inject the Federal Government into something already covered at the county level is a question he needs to be asked.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
"...ask yourself why an employer should be forced to be in the business of paying for employees' contraception (instead of paying a salary, which the employees can spend as they choose)."
why should corporations pay for any healthcare insurance? why not just give all that they pay for insurance to the employees?
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Chaz you live in a place with other options.. Lots of folks do not have those options.
Things are complicated when it comes to two individuals with opposing interests. I am of the very strong opinion that the individual with least power is the one the law should protect most. Not excluysivelybut if error is to be made then it should favor the individual most likely to be harmed.
In this case the employee not the employer.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Huh, so... conservatives don't believe in abortion, but they don't believe in contraception either. Nice!
Oh wait... contraception's just fine. As long as you buy it yourself. Like an education.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Dr. F--stop reading your liberal propaganda and either educate yourself or, preferably, have some of those beers and just don't worry about this stuff!
The Hobby Lobby decision does not apply to Walmart.
Edit:
why should corporations pay for any healthcare insurance? why not just give all that they pay for insurance to the employees?
Absolutely, the US health care system that generally relies on employer funding is a ridiculous remnant of WWII price controls; not really sure why the libtards defend it (the more educated ones really don't, and would prefer a so-called "single payer" system).
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
why should corporations pay for any healthcare insurance? why not just give all that they pay for insurance to the employees?
This I agree on.. It's a rediculous system.
I suggest everyone get a raise, corporations stop paying corporations for healthcare and everyone pay taxes into the same insurance pool.
Kills a lot of birds with one stone right there.
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
Wouldn't it be rad if the law worked in such a way that the SC could say, "We'll give you your IUD exemption, but with these conditions….
…mandatory paid family leave for all women.
…mandatory paid stipend and health insurance for their offspring.
…mandatory paid adoption placement for unwanted children.
…compensatory settlements for women who had to get hysterectomies because they were barred from getting IUD's to deal with fibroids or other bleeding issues.
…compensatory settlements for anyone who suffers other physical or emotional harm due to the necessity of seeking a treatment other than what was recommended by their physician due to the religious restrictions on their employee health plan. "
etc.
If the financial impact of giving birth was as real to the closely held corporate person as it was the actual person who had to live it, I wonder which of their values would carry the day?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
And why would something we call "insurance" pay for contraception in the first place?
The purchase of contraception has virtually nothing in common with what the word "insurance" really means, or at least used to: where people pool together money to collectively assume risk for somewhat unlikely events that would be difficult for the insured to pay for directly.
Sorry, that horse left the barn decades ago.
What we are talking about here is PREVENTIVE CARE. I bet I've seen most of the posters on ST at one time or another complain that doctors don't spend anywhere enough time on PREVENTION of disease. What happened in the ACA was that Medical Scientists advised Congress that the use of prevention would result in much less dis-ease, and a reduction in medical costs to the system, taxpayers, patients, even employers. CONGRESS accepted those arguments, and passed the ACA, which the President signed.
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
The real problem is that we are forcing employers to pay for employee's health care. What started out as a benefit to attract better employees has morphed into a state-mandated nightmare.
Why do employers need to be involved at all with their employee's health care insurance?
What we need instead is a mandatory national healthcare system that is independent of the employers.
It has to be mandatory for everyone because at the level of the E.R. and hospital, you can't turn away people who aren't insured, nor do you have time to figure out who is (and who isn't) insured.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Here is where this can lead:
Say you work for a company that is bought by Christian Scientists. They implement their religious beliefs upon your insurance. They do not believe in the injection of any substances derived from a living thing.
What the hell, you think.
While climbing, you get bit by a rattler. To the ER, 25 vials of anti-venom, @ $3,000 per vial, plus a couple of units of blood, at $1,000.
NOT COVERED!
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Well explained Melissa.
But I'll take it a step further.
Basic fairness. If mens stuff is covered womens stuff should be equally covered.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I'd prefer a single payer system...
but the AMA was against in the same WWII period feeling the doctors would loose control of healthcare
but as part realizing the obvious benefit to the welfare of the nation to opening up access to healthcare to its citizens, the only option open was employer provided health insurance.
had the AMA not been so set against "single payer" we'd have had the system decades ago...
and it is irony that the AMA's opposition essentially ceded health care control to the insurance companies
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
had the AMA not been so set against "single payer" we'd have had the system decades ago...
and it is irony that the AMA's opposition essentially ceded health care control to the insurance companies
I'd prefer single payer also, Ed. In a messed up way, having the Govt. mandate the actions of what amounts to a mishmash of corporate and individual middle managers in our current system is basically a bogus tax structure for a poorly constructed single payer plan, but it's better than not having insurance at all.
I don't know how much of the population was in favor of single payer in 1950, and I suspect you do from your quote above, but currently, I think Obamacare (for all of the ways that it really does suck) was the closest we could get to having some type of funded healthcare for everyone and lessening the burden on the ER in the current climate.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
The AMA had nothing or little to do with the creation of employer paid health insurance.
During WWII Roosevelt mandated wage controls. The only way employers could compete in a stressed labor pool was to offer ever more generous fringe benefit packages.
Both the employer paid and single payer concepts have the same fatal flaw. (yes sometimes literally fatal)
The patient in the end has no control over his care and the provider has no financial loyalty to the patient.
Insurance companies or government decide the outcomes.
At least there is some competition between insurance carriers.
When it's single payer we'll all be in the same boat as the vets at the VA.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
TGT you and I have different concerns regarding either way to cover health care. As you point out both systems will have flaws.
I am of the opinion that a government run insurance pool is more under my control and parallel to my needs than a corporate system
I have more control over my government than a corporation. The proper purpose of government is essentially the same as the purpose of healthcare.
The purposes of a corporation are often in direct conflict with the purpose of healthcare.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
for every one of those I'm pretty sure I can give you 10 deaths of uninsured folks. And 2 of corporately insured folks
Anycase VA is true Socialized healthcare. No one here has advocated for that system.. I could suggest some good things about the VA as there are some great things about it even with the serious flaws.
However I prefer a single payer insurance pool with independent caregivers.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
No say over a corporation?
The conservative knows that in order to constrain greed, we need a system that does it naturally. Fortunately, we have just such a system: The free market. Corporations and governments may both be inclined towards greed, but the market naturally punishes corporations for indulging. How long would Wal-Mart stay in business if it made a habit of screwing its customers, priced its goods exorbitantly or really abused its employees the way leftists want you to believe that it does? Not long. Everybody would go to Target. The market naturally restrains greed. Government, on the other hand, protects greed. Over 1000 vets died so that government workers in Phoenix could get their bonus checks. Nobody went to jail, nobody has even lost their job. Can you honestly say that a corporation that callously killed 1000 folks would walk away unscathed? Of course not. That corporation would be out of business (spare me cigarette companies please, they provide something that an individual uses to kill himself. Different situation altogether. Guns too), people would stop patronizing them. Let me say it again: The market naturally restrains greed. Progs believe the opposite.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Well, what's good enough for veterans ought to be good enough for the rest of us. Bring us all under the same system, so the rest of the populace might feel the need for improvement.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
When it's single payer we'll all be in the same boat as the vets at the VA.
Yes. The VA debacle was created and sustained by the single payer nightmare scenario---imagine that system extended to a population of over 300 million. It shudders the mind to think.
The federal government is clearly not competent enough to make a VA system of national health care work on that level. Not close. It would be a nightmare.
The SCOTUS ruling was a constitutionally sound ruling. Freedoms guaranteed by the constitution ,which certain political forces don't value , such as religious freedom,are under assault by those forces. This entire court case could have been avoided originally in ObamaCare ---but Obama forecasted the political division which he could then take partisan advantage of. Wake up to this folks.
Obama could have forced the insurance companies to pick up the tab for contraception last night with one flick of the pen. By not doing so he is provoking a political fight over this issue for political fundraising purposes ---and it is in naked partisan interests to once again divide the nation.
Bravo to the other SCOTUS ruling limiting union money grabbing: Imagine you are a parent receiving government aid for taking care of your disabled child at home and you receive a bill from a public employees union informing you that you owe them union dues.
Bravo to SCOTUS for striking that down.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Great post Lollie. Thanks for showing us guys what's up and how many of the gals feel.
But.. as usual this has devolved in to brainwashed puppets speaking their respective talking points.
Seems a lot of Women are pretty pissed off though. What a crappy SCOTUS we have. Sorry gals.
I'm out.
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
So let me get this right. Female Hobby Lobby employees are now
forbidden from driving to a drugstore and buying their own
morning after pills? While their H.L. medical insurance still covers
all other types of birth control.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
How do you make ANYTHING work that's under-funded?
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
For you Dr. f , I advocate funding for early-onset Alzheimer's .
-------------------------------------------------------
Dave, when is the last time YOU bought morning after pills, a box of tampons, had babies come out of your vagina or terminate a pregnancy?
When was the last time you had a 15 year old student (your best writer) sign out due to pregnancy, and go off to the pregnancy continuation high school that our tax dollars pay for?
Sully, do you really ,really believe that a government program , funded by your fellow citizens will solve the problems you listed?
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
So its true then? No one is denying it. Female Hobby Lobby employees are now
forbidden from driving to a drugstore and buying their own
morning after pills? ($10-$50)
While their H.L. medical insurance still covers all other types of birth
control?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
The SCOTUS ruling was a constitutionally sound ruling. Freedoms guaranteed by the constitution ,which certain political forces don't value , such as religious freedom,are under assault by those forces.
the SCOTUS ruling, according to SCOTUS, had nothing to do with the Constitution but a prior law.
This decision favored the religious rights of one entity, a corporation, over the religious rights of a human being, an employee.
The right of the corporation has superior standing to that of a human.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
So let me get this right. Female Hobby Lobby employees are now
forbidden from driving to a drugstore and buying their own
morning after pills? While their H.L. medical insurance still covers
all other types of birth control.
This would be incorrect. There were apparently 4 methods that were contested, of which this was one.
I know that another was the IUD, which you don't pick up from a pharmacy, and costs about $1,000.
i'm not sure about the other two.
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
No. H.L. pays much more that min wage.
Besides if she can make to work at H.L.
how hard is it to go next door to the pharmacy?
(Your low opinion of woman is showing sully)
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
Sausages with paunches who know everything (Sullly)
Is there an exemption for philosophers?
:>\
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Sully, do you really ,really believe that a government program , funded by your fellow citizens will solve the problems you listed?
Uhhh, YES:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/study-free-birth-control-abortion-rate_n_1942621.html
The Contraceptive Choice Project, conducted by researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Mo., enrolled 9,256 women and teens from 14 to 45 years of age in the St. Louis area between 2007 and 2011. The participants were all uninsured, low-income, or otherwise determined to be at risk for unintended pregnancy.
Each woman was given a choice of birth control methods, ranging from long-term and more expensive contraceptive devices, such as the intrauterine device (IUD) or an implant, to more common methods, including birth control pills, the ring and the patch. Since price wasn't an issue, about 75 percent of participants chose the implanted methods, which are more effective than short-term methods.
The results were significant: The annual birth rate among teenage girls in the study from 2008 to 2010 was only 6.3 per 1,000, compared to the much higher U.S. rate of 34.3 per 1,000 for girls the same age. And the abortion rates among among all participants ranged from 4.4 to 7.5 per 1,000 women over the two-year period, substantially lower than the national rate of 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women in 2008.
Of course, you probably consider a reduction in abortion of 2/3 to be a terrible thing.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
The high court ruled 5-to-4 in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that family-held private corporations can opt out of offering some forms of birth control in employee health plans, based on the business owners’ religious objections. In this case, the owners of the craft store chain Hobby Lobby say that the birth control methods in question – two forms of morning-after pill and two types of intra-uterine device – can cause early abortions.
Dave you speak with common-sense!
This isn't anything about pre-planned birth control. Its all after the fact abortion control.
Who has insurance without atleast a $50. deductable to cover a box of pills anyway?
THis has nothing to do with a womans Rights! It has everything to do with scientific manipulation of the natural human body.
Hobby Lobby and everyone else should certainly have the right to pick and choose what and how far their coverage extends. Nothing should be taken for granted! ESPECIALLY from the drug companys!!
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
I'm reluctant to join a conversation steeped in hysteria, but Locker got it right!
John
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
KenM, good share!
Blueetc, The "scientific" premise of their argument is not valid.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
the SCOTUS ruling, according to SCOTUS, had nothing to do with the Constitution but a prior law.
That prior law The Freedom of Religion Restoration Act was passed by an almost unanimous Congress and signed into law by Clinton in 1993.
The constitutional validity of that law was decided yesterday.
A good rule of thumb is to consider almost all SCOTUS rulings involve the Constitution.
The right of the corporation has superior standing to that of a human.
Nice try with that useless hyperbole, but that is a total mischaracterization of this issue.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
In this case, the owners of the craft store chain Hobby Lobby say that the birth control methods in question – two forms of morning-after pill and two types of intra-uterine device – can cause early abortions.
==
==
Dave you speak with common-sense!
This isn't anything about pre-planned birth control. Its all after the fact abortion control.
Who has insurance without atleast a $50. deductable to cover a box of pills anyway?
THis has nothing to do with a womans Rights! It has everything to do with scientific manipulation of the natural human body.
Hobby Lobby and everyone else should certainly have the right to pick and choose what and how far their coverage extends. Nothing should be taken for granted! ESPECIALLY from the drug companys!!
Blue, you have a serious misunderstanding of the issue of birth control. (probably explains your 34 kids)
IUD's ARE pre-planned birth control, which lasts for a long time, such as a year. They are never used for abortion purposes, "after the fact".
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Every time you take a pill you,re scientifically manipulating the human body.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
The right of the corporation has superior standing to that of a human.
Nice try with that useless hyperbole, but that is a total mischaracterization of this issue.
Nice try, that was an actual description of what happened.
Otherwise, tell me the name of the person whose religious freedom was specifically upheld by SCOTUS.
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
Sad state of affairs!
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Geez Dude?
Dr. F.
Trad climber
SoCal
Jul 1, 2014 - 08:32am PT
99% of all women use Birth control at some point in their life
Most wives of husbands use birth control, your girlfriend,
every women should use it, we have a Over Population Problem.
And it's not just for sex, many women take it out of necessity as hormonal treatment
To restrict it out of ignorance and sexism is just plain wrong
and to say it's because of some Christian Beliefs is pure hypocrisy
No where in the Bible does it say anything about birth Control or abortion
It's about One thing, Control of Women in a Male Dominated Society through Authoritarian restrictions.
How many LIES are in this post alone!
AND your trying to urge all woman to take up arms against rightwing christians?
If conservatives were satisfied by Hobby Lobby, reproductive rights activists were outraged, calling the decision the latest strike in the so-called “war on women.” They promised to put the issue front and center in the fall midterms.
“This will be a main conversation point in 2014,” says Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Can you even present a reasoned arguement on how this is a war on women???
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Otherwise, tell me the name of the person whose religious freedom was specifically upheld by SCOTUS.
The individuals who own Hobby Lobby as a closely held corporation . Go and find their names in the SCOTUS ruling .
Are you suggesting the owners of this business lack legal standing in this case?
America is now the best example of how individual choice only proves that the individual dosn't have what it takes to practically or intelligently navigate systems completely outside of their competency.
Well, there you go folks.
Hey, Americans will take care of this . You have plenty of problems in your own country. I suggest you attend to them
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Ed, employer-paid health insurance was popularized by Henry Ford, but really gained traction during WWII's wage controls. Fringe benefits were not included in the wage ceilings, so employers could effectively raise pay to attract workers by offering employer-paid health care. In addition, those fringe benefits were not recognized as income for tax purposes, so employer-paid health care allowed employees to pay for health care with pre-tax dollars. In order to provide an employee with enough after-tax dollars to purchase health insurance, the employer would need to pay enough to compensate the employee for his or her income tax, plus another roughly 15% for FICA, Medicare, etc.
Thus, the effect of the SCOTUS decision yesterday costs any Hobby Lobby employee who seeks the particular birth control not offered through the employer perhaps 30% more than the list price, because of the tax disadvantage. It's still largely a small amount, but sometimes precision matters.
John
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Look around, see how its done right and incorporate it with your existing advantages.
Oh please.LOL
We'd have to be masochistic as well as "xenophobic"
I welcome good suggestions from other nationalities---not the virulent , psychologically- driven chronic anti-Americanism of a few marginal malcontents .
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 1, 2014 - 11:52am PT
|
It's discrimination. Another War on Woman decision.
It's such a incomprehensible decision I first thought it was a joke.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
laugh all you want Ward but its the rest of the world laughing at you, not with you.
LOL
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
On page 1, Jan wrote Then Viagra came along and that was cleared by the government in less than six months.Even in Japan Why is this relevant?
Because there was no complaint by the Christian Whackos (and Republitards) about paying for vasectomies or Viagra which are also covered by the ACA.
They did NOT ask for an exemption for them. But hey, we wouldn't want to discriminate against men.
Talk about misogyny!
Thank you Lollie and Melissa for speaking out on women's behalf.
Why do I care? Because our society is supposed to be based upon equality of opportunity and benefits for all.
And because this decision is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. It is also a Very Bad Precedent.
Once again the Supreme Retards place the rights of corporations above citizens' rights. This time by allowing an employer's religious beliefs to materially affect an employees rights granted by the United States. Much as a Corporation (one legal entity) now can spend as much money as they like on campaign contributions, thereby diluting our individual free speech.
Ginsburg in dissent:
What the Court must decide is not ‘the plausibility of a religious claim…’ but whether accommodating that claim risks depriving others of rights accorded them by the laws of the United States.”
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
Ginsberg also questioned the breadth of the ruling. There is really no end game to how much a "closely held" corporation can interfere in an individuals personal decisions now.
I am pretty sure the Kock Bros. are pulling a lot of strings on this one.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
It's discrimination. Another War on Woman decision.
It's such a incomprehensible decision I first thought it was a joke.
Lolli, you need to do two things :
1. Be more critical of the political propaganda you've been hearing.
2. Take a night course in the US Constitution ( especially if you are going to allow these American issues to influence your feelings about anything or ruin your day)
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
HT, the decision surprised me because of the standing issue of the individuals, but that aside, Ginsburg's dissent poses a rather large problem in Contitution jurisprudence. The First Amendment explicitly protects the free exercise of religion. The "other laws" to which Ginsburg alludes have no explicit protection in the Constitution. Rather, they exist by implication, which leads to an amusing anecdote.
The final round of the moot court competition at my law school (UCLA) usually had at least one sitting Supreme Court justice sitting on the panel. My first year, Justice Blackmon was on the panel, with two Ninth Circuit judges.
In the course of the argument, one of the students was arguing for the vindication of a right that was not explicit in the Constitution. When Justice Blackmon interrupted the student and asked him where he found that right in the Constitution, the student responded "The same place you found the right of privacy in Roe v. Wade, Your Honor." The he paused so we all could realize the full horror of his faux pas. Even Justice Blackmon laughed.
John
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Lolli.. I feel ya.. lots of times in the last 20 years observing our nation's political system I have had exactly the same experience.
Bruce.. I love your posts. Spot on!
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Rather, they exist by implication, which leads to an amusing anecdote.
JEleazarian, question for you:
Do you think these attempts to piecemeal rewrite the Constitution using implicit rulings have the potential of one day rendering the Constitution only partially valid in a way that strictly reflects a given political viewpoint at a particular historical moment?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Once again the Supreme Retards place the rights of corporations above citizens' rights. This time by allowing an employer's religious beliefs to materially affect an employees rights granted by the United States.
So how is that wrong here?
What difference does it matter if its religious beliefs or personal beliefs?
Which right was taken away? She still has the ability to receive contraception's.
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 1, 2014 - 12:35pm PT
|
Ward Trotter,
thank you for your advice. I will carefully consider it.
I did study the American Constitution when I went to high school though, didn't you? American History too, btw. It was compulsory.
I'm not quite sure why you consider facts propaganda? Are you saying they did not take that decision? Or is it that discriminating rulings which does conflict with the constitution should be carried out quietly and sneaky, and revealing them is propaganda?
I also appreciate your concern, but it did not ruin my day. Happily I'm not affected by nutty religious fundamentalist's womenhating decisions* over here, but I do feel for my friends who will be affected. Both men and women, as nobody's an isle isolated from the either sex.
*(Note, I do not consider normal persons who are religious nutty nor fundamentalist. Some obviously are though.)
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
John
The First Amendment explicitly protects the free exercise of religion Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.... This can be and has been interpreted in a many different ways.
note the conjunctive "or"
It clearly means more than "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" was intended.
In my humble knowledge of Constitutional history, the first clause "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means the Congress cannot give an advantage to one religious belief over another in law.
Burwell v Hobby Lobby gives a clear advantage of HL over it's employees based upon HL's (a rather dubious form of corporation) religious belief by disallowing a government benefit.
It has also frequently in modern times been interpreted that the government may not recognize any religion. But that's for a different discussion (Crosses (Christian) in gov't buildings: NO. In God We Trust (generic) on our money:YES)
I find your Blackmun anecdote very amusing!
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
She still has the ability to receive contraception She is discriminated against because she doesn't have the same right to be compensated by the government as a woman working for a different employer who also subscribes to the ACA.
Most Christian Fundamentalists (and many other religious conservatives) don't want any contraceptive coverage for women (note that men are OK).
That's why so many conservatives are making a point about this. Do you think they give a piss about HL itself? They don't want the ACA to provide contractive coverage period.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Happily I'm not affected by *nutty religious fundamentalist's womenhating decisions over here,
Glad to hear it. But your comment above better reflects the propaganda line, not the facts.
That much is obvious.
Rule of thumb: whenever you repeat "woman-hating" you are doing someone's propaganda work.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
reflects the propaganda line, BS
it's Lollie's personal and rational opinion.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Ward, that is exactly the problem. In standard canons of statutory construction, an explicit provision takes precedence over a general one. Thus, if an explicitly enumerated right clashes with an implied one, the explicit one should prevail. Otherwise, the Constitution loses its binding effect.
The standing issue to which I allude, though, makes the majority holding in the Hobby Lobby case rather difficult for me. If Hobby Lobby were a sole proprietorship, the standing issue is easy. With a corporate plaintiff, however, how can we say a non-religious corporation has religious beliefs? If the shareholders merely sell their shares, have they not escaped the actions about which they complain, and still received full economic value for their business?
I understand the majority opinion, and I absolutely concur that the enoumerating right to free exercise trumps any right to have your employer pay for a fringe benefit, but I, like Ginsburg, have trouble with the breadth of its reach. I predict that future holdings will likely limit this case to its facts.
John
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Disallowing a government benefit?
THE MORNING AFTER PILL??????????????????????????
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
It's discrimination. Another War on Woman decision.
It's such a incomprehensible decision I first thought it was a joke.
Hey Lollie, what part of the decision couldn't you comprehend?
If you could focus your inability to comprehend it somewhat, that would allow me and anyone else posting here who is at least somewhat knowledgeable about American law to try to help you.
(No guarantee that we'll succeed, but it's worth a shot.)
There's a lot of disinformation about the scope of this decision, so I hope you actually read the opinion yourself before declaring it be "incomprehensible."
I'm still waiting for Dr. F to apologize for propagating the myth that this decision applied to Walmart. No one who read the decision (as opposed to reading liberal propaganda) would say that (at least if they understood what they read).
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
With a corporate plaintiff, however, how can we say a non-religious corporation has beliefs? Do you know if this point was breached in the majority opinion? Or in the various precedents?
I would be interested to know what you think after reading that opinion, if you have the time.
it's Lollie's personal and rational opinion.
That's not how she characterized it . She called it " the facts"
The facts are normally considered an objective appraisal ---not an "opinion"
What do see as "rational" in the use of the term "woman-hating" in this context?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Ward, the reason the majority limited its holding to "close corporations" was precisely because of that point. A publicly traded corporation differs from one with only one family of shareholders. I understand the reason for the court's distinction. If I organize a family business as a corporation -- which a great many are -- I still feel like it's me doing the business.
Again, my problem is in limiting the scope of that holding. As one example, Paramount Farming is one of California's largest agricultural companies, and it has a single shareholder, namely a trust from the family one one lawyer. (His name is known, for those who care, but I see no reason to get into that here). If that one lawyer objected to abortion on grounds of conscience, the consequence to the corporations employees would be much more far-reaching than those to Hobby Lobby's employees. Do we still say his freedom of conscience controls?
It's a tough issue. As we say in the law, hard cases make bad law. Despite the screaming on this thread, this was a hard case.
John
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
BLU
get a grip
the issue is whether HL can deny a government mandated benefit to an employees based upon religious differences. Remember, it is specifically their religious belief that the HL "corporation" are claiming. If the same woman worked for my corporation, she'd have full benefits.
The issue is government supplied benefits. HL has the right to not subscribe to HCA if they object.
how can we say a non-religious corporation has religious beliefs? That is indeed a bizarre interpretation. Of course the conditional clause is "closely held corporation" which is only defined in IRS tax law as far as I can find.
And after all "corporations are people" Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 2010
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Ward
She called it " the facts" do you think when I say "Christian Fundamentalist Whackos", I'm claiming a fact?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Most Christian Fundamentalists (and many other religious conservatives) don't want any contraceptive coverage for women
And you cite this from where?
Please think about it, Health care is suppose to take care of you when something goes wrong. Like an injury, for pete's sakes! Contraceptive medicine is to try and predict an outcome from an extra curricular activity.
If they got acme, let'em get acme medicine!
Going with that logic i should be able to get my caffine paid for by insurance!
BTW, i'm very much opposed to men receiving viagra
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"And you cite this from where?"
It's incredibly easy to illustrate the clear, obvious bias that our society & politics have against women's empowerment over their own bodies, vs. the empowerment that is only reinforced for men.
It's a LOT harder to show a trend of events that supports the idea that women have received equal empowerment, however. Feel free to give some clear examples...I'm open to hearing them.
This decision is sickening, and America should be deeply ashamed of how the current SCOTUS has undermined the very nature of equality and liberty for all.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
do you think when I say "Christian Fundamentalist Whackos", I'm claiming a fact?
If you are using the term to characterize the SCOTUS ruling you are not using it as a relevant fact.
|
|
rmuir
Social climber
From the Time Before the Rocks Cooled.
|
|
The Majority Decision: Supreme Court Injustices. White, Catholic, conservative men; the lot of them. Of course, that had nothing to do with it.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
And after all "corporations are people" Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 2010
I was waiting for someone to make that argument. Citizens United was, after all, not exactly the first case to give corporations rights under the First Amendment. You may want to check out New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, decided by that reactionary Warren court, among many others. Or try to take away property from a corporation without complying with the Fifth and, if applicable, Fourteenth Amendments.
I consider the Citizens United organization similar to, say, the Pilgrim Armenian Congreation Curch ("PACC"), which is a California religious corporation. PACC is really an organization of individuals united by a common idea, in this case theology. Citizens United was also an organization united by a common idea -- in that case political ideology. In both cases (Citizens United and PACC), the corporation is really individuals acting in concert to perform duties explicitly protected by the Constitution.
Hobby Lobby, in contrast, is an association of individuals organized to conduct commerce, which is an activity without First Amendment protection. The mere fact of corporate existence, in a vacuum, is not enough to make a determination of the corporation's constitutional rights.
John
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
this was a hard case. I suppose that largely depends upon your interpretation of the First Amendment.
To my mind, this is clearly "a Supreme Court decision respecting an establishment of religion" where none was intended in the original law.
A very slippery slope.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
rmuir writes:
"The Majority Decision: Supreme Court Injustices. White, Catholic, conservative men; the lot of them."
I wonder if Clarence Thomas knows he's a white Catholic.
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
I'm being denied a Gulf Stream II personal jet upgrade and have to
live with a Cessna. Don't talk about free birth control. Some of
us are really suffering flying at 160knots when 500knots is being denied
for no reason other than the Liberals won't give me one for free!
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
The Majority Decision: Supreme Court Injustices. White, Catholic, conservative men; the lot of them. Of course, that had nothing to do with it.
Robs, I think that quote proves too much. After all, no one attempted to abort any Justice of the Supreme Court ever, yet they must decide issues of abortion, too. It's an issue about the beginning of life, which leads me to a joke one of my law partners told me.
A liberal protestant minister and a conservative Catholic priest were discussing the morality of abortion. Like climbers, their discussion could be misinterpreted as an argument. Soon, they began debating the point at which life began, each marshalling Old Testament scripture to support their respective positions.
Just then, an Orthodox rabbi walked by. The priest and minister thought since they were arguing Old Testament, why not ask the rabbi, so they said, "Rabbi, maybe you can help us. When does life begin?"
The rabbi thought, "When does life begin? . . . When the kids are out of college and the dog dies, that's when life begins!"
John
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Hair-splitting is an effective way to achieve one's political interests (or undermine someone else's). It also works well in law, and can make the most ridiculously obvious case fail due to minutiae.
Meanwhile...the impacts of the bigger picture march on, with the interests of others being trampled underfoot.
|
|
rmuir
Social climber
From the Time Before the Rocks Cooled.
|
|
I wonder if Clarence Thomas knows he's a white Catholic.
He's about as white as they come…
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
JE:
Hobby Lobby, in contrast, is an association of individuals organized to conduct commerce, which is an activity without First Amendment protection. JE, I'm not exactly sure what you meant or intended to mean by the above, but if it's that commercial speech lacks First Amendment protection, it's incorrect.
Commercial speech is indeed protected under the First Amendment, albeit not to the same extent as other types of speech.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
True, blah, blah. I'll need to re-think how I articulate my distinction better, but for now I'll try this: Commerce, in and of itself, differs from religious exercise in that the latter has explicit First Amendment protection. Commerce generally has a few Constitutional protections, such as the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking without compensation, the right to conduct business without interstate tarrifs, the right to commercial speech, etc. Commerce lacks a blanket Consitutional protection, however, in contrast to exercise of religious beliefs.
John
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Do we still say his freedom of conscience controls?
FOR SURE!!!
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness! Freedom to express who you are!
i see all this as trying to break down ones character. Because one holds different morals than you you want to regulate his actions? If you dont like his opinion on abortion, Don't work for him! and don't buy his carrots!!!
The big picture here is the drug companys and government are training you to be puppets,just shut up and take a pill.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Dr. F: earlier you said that the Hobby Lobby applies to Walmart.
Your last post doesn't mention it.
Do you know admit that Hobby Lobby does not apply to Walmart, or are you going to keep lying to everyone?
Please stop posting liberal propaganda and READ THE FREAKING DECISION!
edit--hard to keep up with Dr. F's posting.
Rest assured everyone, Hobby Lobby does not apply to Walmart, which is a publicly traded company and is not "closely held" in the context of Hobby Lobby (I very much doubt it's closely held under definition of that term, including the IRS's definition).
Dr. F, if you contend that Walmart is "closely held" under any definition, please:
1. set forth the definition, and
2. show how that definition applies to Walmart.
Please DO NOT simply post more libtard propoganda.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Dr. F--willfully being ignorant is tantamount to lying.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
In both cases (Citizens United and PACC), the corporation is really individuals acting in concert to perform duties explicitly protected by the Constitution. A point: Agreed, CU seems to apply to only a small class of corporations. I haven't the time to carefully read about the case.
A question: What restraints on campaign finance (if any) does CU place on plain old profit making commercial enterprises such as General Motors?
A point: my tossing in CU was rather irrelevant.
The question in Hobby Lobby is to what extent a corporation can interfere with a government benefit on religious grounds.
In the real world of life and commerce, corporations have immensely more power than individuals. In matters of commerce (rather than free speech) may their "beliefs" trump an employee's rights?
This is part of the problem, as pointed out by Ginsburg and JE.
Can a corporation in the business of making or selling stuff or providing a service (as opposed to "duties explicitly protected by the Constitution") have the right to trump an employee's right granted by Federal Law?
Consider that the specific purpose of any corporation is for the shareholders to act as a single legal entity. A corporation is effectively a "person" under the law. Can one person deny another a right granted by the Federal Government?
It's all very easy to say the employee can go find another job. Another thing for that employee to find another job with comparable wages, working conditions and benefits plus the benefits denied by their present employer. If it were so easy, she would have already done it.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
To my mind, this is clearly "a Supreme Court decision respecting an establishment of religion" where none was intended in the original law.
In my understanding, the term "establishment of religion" is directly directed to Government. Utah cannot elect itself as a Mormon state and run itself as its bible tells them.
HobbyL should have never brought religion into this(other than making a point) they should(as should any other private business) have the right to agree/disagree with what the government puts forward on moral issues.
You think your rights are being taken away, what about hobby's?
shouldn't they have the right to hold on to their Character even when doing business? This whole thing is blanketed under business and health coverage.Hobby hasn't taken away the right for the woman to take whatever medicine she wants. Hobby has only dictated what they allow coming from a policy they paid for.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
No. They should have to conduct themselves according to the rule of law, like the rest of us.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Being goaded by Dr. F's is fool's errand, but anyone who is interested in whether Walmart is a closely held corporation as used in Hobby Lobby would be well served to consult any mainstream analysis rather than Dr. F's libtard nonsense.
E.g., from
http://www.freep.com/article/20140630/BUSINESS07/306300097/scotus-hobby-lobby-contraception-obamacare
Don Hazaert, executive director of Michigan Consumers for Health Care, also was upset about the decision. But he said he doesn’t believe it’s going to have a huge impact, noting that the decision applies only to corporations that are controlled by just a few people, not publicly held corporations such as Wal-Mart.
“We do not expect it to impact that many Americans,” Hazaert said. “The vast majority of women throughout America will still be able to receive the full spectrum of contraceptive services in the vast majority of cases.”
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
It's incredibly easy to illustrate the clear, obvious bias that our society & politics have against women's empowerment over their own bodies, vs. the empowerment that is only reinforced for men.
Yes! And the root of that evil would be Evolution!
The strongest will survive, Right?
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
People who want to make these kind of special exceptions for corporations and individuals when regards to which laws may or may not be applicable should question and consider whether it was the founding father's intention that religious belief should trump federal law (or state law for that matter).
I'm drawing from every conversation I've had with anyone of a religious nature who makes the claim that the law of God trumps the laws of man every time, and if the two conflict, they go with the law of God. And believe me, there's plenty of that. Just ask the radical Muslims.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Sometimes the smartest outwit the strongest.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
And speaking of evolution and healthcare, how about this theory:
We've created such an effective healthcare system as to usurp the natural law of evolution, allowing the weak to survive and breed, thus passing on and mixing flawed DNA. Thus, future generations will be sicker and require more extensive healthcare on a continuously expanding basis until the pace of illness outstrips that of the healthcare industry.
Then, the population self-corrects.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Just for clarity on Closely Held Corporations.
In 2008, Forbes published a list of the US PHCs who have gross revenues of $1.0 BILLION or more.
It is 18 pages long, 25 CHC's per page. Nearly 450 big companies.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/21/privates08_Americas-Largest-Private-Companies_Rank.html
In 2013, Cargill is #1 with $137 Billion in revenues.
While America’s closely held companies aren’t all gigantic corporations, they constitute some 52 percent of the American workforce, and are responsible for an estimated 51 percent of the economic output of the nation’s private sector. Hobby Lobby and co-plaintiff Mennonite Conestoga Wood Specialties employee approximately 14,000 U.S. workers
Cargill said that it “plans to provide the same coverage we have been.” The food-service giant has 143,000 employees in 67 countries; this decision is relevant to their approximately 47,000 American workers. http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/07/cargill-publix-hobby-lobby-ruling-birth-control
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
None of this applies to WalMart, Dr F.
Are you sure you're a doctor?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
HT--is Walmart on the list you posted?
Can you explain why or why not for Dr. F's edification.
Fortmental--your post illustrates why repeating nonsense rather than reading the opinion (including the dissent) is just that (nonsense).
Ginsburg did indeed post examples of giant, "closely held corporations."
They don't include Walmart, and the Hobby Lobby decision doesn't include Walmart.
Ginsburg does speculate that the logic of Hobby Lobby could apply more broadly, but that doesn't change the holding.
From her dissent:
“Closely held” is not synonymous with “small.” Hobby Lobby is hardly the only enterprise of sizable scale that is family owned or
closely held. For example, the family-owned candy giant Mars, Inc.,
takes in $33 billion in revenues and has some 72,000 employees, and
closely held Cargill, Inc., takes in more than $136 billion in revenues
and employs some 140,000 persons. See Forbes, America’s Largest
Private Companies 2013, available at http://www.forbes.com/
largest-private-companies/.
FM--do you at least understand that there is a difference between the ownership of Mars and Walmart for this purpose?
If not, please say so and I'll try to explain later.
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 1, 2014 - 02:22pm PT
|
Don't be stupid, Ward. That was an utterly feeble try to twist my words. Make a decent try if you're taking that approach. To me, it only tells you don't have anything sensible to say about what I wrote.
I'm a feminist.
"Human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights."
You know, one of the
LOL
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Dr F writes:
"The birth control excemptions may not apply to them now, but it may in the future. No one knows for sure.
They are a closely held Company, and that was the question, correct?"
Do you have all your fingers, Dr F?
If so, stick out your hand and count them.
If the number of Walton Family members is greater than the number you found when you counted your fingers, then none of this applies to WalMart. That's what "five or fewer" means.
Are you sure you're a doctor?
|
|
John Duffield
Mountain climber
New York
|
|
Will be interesting to see where this teapot tempest goes. Is outrage sufficient that "Hobby Lobby" (I've never seen one) have negative business impact and start closing stores? Will women stop working there because their rights are curtailed?
Is the financial burden of birth control so excessive, their employees can't pay for it themselves? That's the issue. Not that they don't allow their employees to have it. That really would be an outrage.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
The question in Hobby Lobby is to what extent a corporation can interfere with a government benefit on religious grounds.
If the benefit is a drug, Thats a problem.
If you must subscribe to a mandated policy that issues these drugs, Thats a problem!
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 1, 2014 - 02:36pm PT
|
Hey Lollie, what part of the decision couldn't you comprehend?
Oh I comprehended it alright, but I thought it had to be a joke. I couldn't believe they have gone so far that they openly discriminate women on such a level.
It's uncomprehensible that a Supreme Court decides that
1) women's health care can be excepted on a religious basis
2) an entity as a company can hold religious beliefs
3) that religion is allowed to interfere with legislature
4) that only women's health care are given disadvantages
5) that only ONE religion is taken into consideration, if taking religiously based legal decisions
How long before you have christian sharia laws?
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 1, 2014 - 02:40pm PT
|
Bruce Kay, :-)
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Walmart is a closely held company.
Period.
Depends on the context. Try telling that to the SEC in the context of the Securities and Exchange Act, the IRS in the context of the Internal Revenue Code, or the SCOTUS if the plaintiff were Walmart rather than Hobby Lobby. It think you'll find that your period doesn't occur without a bunch of caveats and exceptions.
That said, I share your concern about the scope of this ruling. While I understand the majority's argument, I fear the legal mischief this case can cause.
John
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Yea that's a nice breed lollie
welcome to the planet of the apes
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
My god are you ignorant.
Period.
(Dr. F.--I put a "period" (both the word and the dot) after my post, so that means I'm right. Please apologize now.)
FM--if you want to reduce your ignorance a bit, try to figure out the Ginsburg quite I posted above.
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
"We all know there is a cure for poverty, it is a rudimentary one, it does work though. It works everywhere for the same reason. It's colloquially called 'the empowerment of women.' It's the only thing that does work. If you allow women some control over their cycle of reproduction so they are not chained by their husbands or by village custom to annual, 'animal-type' pregnancies, early death, disease... if you free them from that, give them some basic health of that sort, if you're generous enough to throw in a handful of seeds and a bit of credit, the whole floor - culturally, socially medically, economically - of that village, will rise."
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Wallmart doesn't offer healthcare at all!
why shouldn't another company be able to offer healthcare with restrictions?
Edit; That was a good one GDavis!
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 1, 2014 - 02:51pm PT
|
BLUEBLOCR,
so you're against human rights and equality between the sexes?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Wallmart doesn't offer healthcare at all!
wherever did you get that information?
of course they do, to certain employees, and the rest apply for your taxes paid Medicaid
because keeping costs down increases profits
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
i'm ALL about personal rights in the private sector!
And i think women should start opening the doors for men
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
Not offering healthcare, and excluded agreed-upon standards of what healthcare means based on fundamentalism, are separate things.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
FM, here's what Investopedia defines Closely Held Corporation.
Closely Held Corporation
Any company that has only a limited number of shareholders. Closely held corporation stock is publicly traded on occasion, but not on a regular basis. These entities differ from privately owned firms that issue stock that is not publicly traded. Those who own shares of closely held corporations should consult a financial planner with expertise in the tax and estate ramifications that come with owning this type of stock.
Do you think that describes Walmart?
Please cease and desist from your nonsense.
(And not sure why you're laughing at my link to the Detroit Free Press--it's not as if there is any serious debate as to whether Hobby Lobby applies to Walmart--that was just the first link to a mainstream article that I came across.)
So let's stick to the actual decision itself: I've already posted to at least one part that shows that Walmart isn't covered (Ginsburg's dissent, where she would be strongly motivated to include Walmart as an example of a closely held corporation if it were one).
Now please refer to the section of the decision that you think supports your view.
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 1, 2014 - 03:12pm PT
|
BLUEBLOCR,
I think that person who reaches the door first should hold it open for the person behind him/her. Or for people who have a lot to carry or elderly and infirm. Simple common civility, caring for your fellow human being. Manners.
:-)
But there's a world of difference between the small courteous acts of everyday life and political and/or legislative decisions which affects the lives of people economically or in their way of life. This is a discriminating decision against half the population, based on nothing else but gender.
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
I do make sure to throw my cape over puddles that a Victorian-era woman might cross. That is, before we hook up on Tinder.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
^^^Good one Bubbles!!!
ok lollie
it's gender based only because only women can have babies. If men could have babies we would still be writing these laws. So the "poor me" act doesn't work in my courtroom.(not trying to make you mad, jus trying to get the emotion-ness out of the room)
The bottom line here hasn't to do with the lady. Hobby started it.
The question here is whether or not Hobbyland can hold to a higher moral ground than that of The Government in a public setting,ie, a store.
Mind you, this is a privately owned business on privately owned property.
The type of Drug restiction Hobby wants directly correlates with an act that goes against Hobby's conscious. And this only associates with maybe 20% of the female population.And i wonder of those how many actually apply? But not half the population.Besides i know women who are on Hobby's side.
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 1, 2014 - 04:04pm PT
|
why should a devout Buddhist, who believes that killing anything living may place his soul in danger of eternal rebirth, be forced to pay for the military and wars whose function is to kill?
Wormcanreasoning.
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 1, 2014 - 04:22pm PT
|
BLUEBLOCR, I don't think your reasoning holds water. They did not judge the same way against Viagra for instance, which, all jokes aside, some men really do need in order to be able to have a sexlife, with the reasoning that in that case God doesn't intend them to have sex or make babies.
Besides the other medical uses of contraceptions, which isn't only for preventing pregnacies. It's a decision solely aimed at women health care.
Bruce Kay said the rest, so I don't have to repeat it.
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
far as I know, Planned Parenthood offers safe abortions, at no cost; also offers free contraception services
I'm pretty sure you can't get a free abortion or IUD there unless you're on Medicaid/Medical. For a lot of women proving their household income amounts to getting their husband's permission for either service.
From the El Cerrito Planned Parenthood website:
Payment Information
If you are uninsured, you may qualify for a state-funded program or a lower fee scale.
Fees for services are based on your household income.
We accept the following forms of payment:
cash
major credit/debit cards
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
You can get an IUD at the County Health Department free of charge.
And everything else Hobby Lobby doesn't feel like paying for, too.
This is only a problem if you want it to be a problem.
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
Chaz…from LA county website:
Family Planning, Access, Care and Treatment (Family PACT)
The Family PACT program covers family planning services for men and women at LA County DHS and community clinics. Family income must be at or below $1,945* per month and have no other coverage.
* Monthly income level above is based on the April 1, 2014 Federal Poverty Levels (FPL) for your family size.
So, if you have one adult making $10/hour, 40 hours/week, another bringing in an extra $400 a month, and lets assume your baby doesn't contribute to the family income. You're too rich for the free IUD.
It's a catch-22…get pregnant and knock yourself back below the poverty line when your unplanned little hungry mouth arrives, and qualify for birth control again. The ACA was supposed to eliminate some of these ridiculous red lines that hold people in poverty.
ETA: Bonus stat I just looked up:
As of June, 2014, average apartment rent within 10 miles of Los Angeles, CA is $1693.
One bedroom apartments in Los Angeles rent for $1465 a month on average and two bedroom apartment rents average $1892.
http://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-los-angeles-rent-trends
That bonus $150/month will pay off the IUD in around 7 months if no one ever needs to eat or pay for anything else in that time.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
why should a devout Buddhist,
Yea why should he? And why should a christian have to condone a pill that kills fetus's? Think about it.. from the Tibetan monks to American christians, spiritual prose has been trampled on by governments for,for ever! They keep com'in up with more inventions to demoralize us with..
It's hapening faster and faster under the guise of modern medicine and tv and computers. a blanket of illusion. Without respect for nature they'll readily sacrifice life for immediate satisfaction and pleasure.
Apes, i tell you,Apes!
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
Any more bogus facts about where I can get me a free IUD that I should check before I head for din din?
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Why should a devout Muslim have to hire a non-Muslim, allow them in their establishment to shop, or provide any services to them at all, let alone healthcare, when such non-Muslims are no more than mere infidels?
|
|
Daphne
Trad climber
Northern California
|
|
I'm taking a poll:
Who takes the responsibility for preventing procreation in your relationship?
Have you ever been in a long term relationship where you always wore a condom as well as collaborated with your partner using a spermicide to raise the effectiveness of conds to resemble the effectiveness of birth control?
If your female partner and you are sure you are finished having children why havent you had a vasectomy if you havent?
If men bore equal responsibility for prevention of pregnancy there wouldnt be any resistance to providing women this prescription. It isnt about finances. Finances are a smoke screen.
A while back a pharmacy in el paso tx refused to fill contraception rx for women. This scotus interpretation is coming from that same rationale.
|
|
Daphne
Trad climber
Northern California
|
|
Always my favorite thing to hear in a new partner, Bruce. :)
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
A while back a pharmacy in el paso tx refused to fill contraception rx for women. This scotus interpretation is coming from that same rationale. Umm sort of, if you mean that we live in a more-or-less free country where we're generally not compelled by the government to do things that are opposed to our religious beliefs, subject to some exceptions (yes, we all do have to pay taxes, and I'm not sure that Buddhist has more of a basis to object as to how the money is spent than anyone else).
On a more technical level, the rationale of the Supreme Court and the El Paso pharmacy have nothing whatsover in common, but we've learned from this thread that that Super Topo legal analysis isn't all that rigorous.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
I'm taking a poll:
Whatever happened to saving oneself for marriage? If we all took this higher moral latitude, we wouldn't have to fumble around with this nonsense!
Yea right! Like thats gonna happen. But we can TRY!
We should be teaching it in schools; NOT handing out rubbers!
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
BruceKay had a Canadian opperation? Will it work?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Once again, the assumption that "good christian values" are actually good does not stand up to any reasonable level of scrutiny.
Maybe not to you. But why do you want to rain on my parade?
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
My climbing pard snuk out 5 years after the snip.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
you check your "unique" demands at the door, e Gov.
Check!
That's exactly what Hobby said to the Gov. when they tried to slip these drugs in the back door! Everything was fine and dandy before that. Hobby stood up and voiced their opinion and got it amended. The proper legal action. Whats wrong with that? That's the little guy standing up to big government and big business drug company's!
Do you really think Hobby is sit'in over there now rubbing their hands together saying,"That's a liitle more power we got over women by stopping two of the ten ways of abortion, HeHeHe". And because Hobby didn't sit down and accept these new drugs, You wisecrackers start calling them names, you put them down, even going so far as to say They are at war with women. That Hobby's only motivation is to dictate power over women.
Really????????????????????
|
|
froodish
Social climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
If this thread only had some mansplaining I'm quite sure we could solve all these issues you women are complaining about.
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
I have to agree, religious people suck...
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
Jul 1, 2014 - 07:59pm PT
I have to agree, religious people suck...
Yea! But boy do we love you!!!!!!!!
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
The scientists and engineers over 50 DO. What do you make of that? (Sullly)
Not me, kiddo!
(Well, almost . . . give me a break. I am way, way over 50!)
;>)
Edit: Hey! no fair deleting your accusation, Sullly. (she said old philosophers don't have paunches, but . . .)
;>\
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Women wouldn't need birth control if they didn't dress so sluttily...
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Aren't fatties allowed to dream?
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Excellent question Reilly...over and out..RJ
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
if they weren't so goddamn fat.
Nawww! i don't think it's cuz'a that. It's cuz men don't know how to be romantic anymore (partly due to feminism), men have become stale, almost emotionless either like a zombie or a robot. Beep Beep! Time for bonner, wheres my pill? Coarse this is a select 10million i'm talk'in bout. There's still plenty good old fashioned drunk bonners down at the bar!
|
|
Climberdude
Trad climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
The Taliban came to America and not the one the evil war mongers W and Dick warned about. The caliphate in not in the Middle East, but rather in middle America. Funny how the people frothing up so much about sharia law openly cheer our own sharia law.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Funny how the people frothing up so much about sharia law openly cheer our own sharia law.
Yea? who's do'in that
maybe ur on the wrong thread?
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
Religious people suck.
Stereotype much?
I once saw a climber post something terrible on supertopo. I read about a climber who killed somebody. Climbers suck.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
What did women do for contraception back before Obamacare?
That wasn't even a year ago.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Did you know... in some places tube tying's free with a C-section?
Score.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
Michael's is the better craft store anyway. Shop there. (Sullly)
Must I? Is that a philosophical imperative? God, I hate craft stores . . .
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
HA! My god this guy is a riot!
That one was for you, i knew you would like it!
Happy CanadaDay Eh! Beep Beep!
Ehdit: Archie Bunker was BAD, Dude!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
l'll freaky farouk for ya
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Did you know... in some places tube tying's free with a C-section?
Did you know... That hospital/doctors urge patients into having a C-section, correction, threaten patients with, "if you don't hurry-up we're gonna give you a C-sec." in-order to make more money? The average low-income(on medicaid) charge is 8k. While the charge for a C- sec is around 33k, and less time for the Doctor to hang around.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
BB... Did you ever try to squeeze a turd out sideways? Now imagine trying it with a baby. After 23 hours in labor and watching the baby's heart monitor slow with every contraction, it was time.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
And really, if so many major medical decisions are made based on the profit margin (which is directly linked to... privately run insurance companies) then isn't it time we gave more consideration to patient care than dollar signs?
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
^^^^
Two words:
Public Option.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
the high point of the Age of Enlightenment
i was meaning to ask you what you meant by A of E?
Archie Bunker was a Summit. it allowed america to laugh over racial tensions between blacks and whites. Were you alive at that time? i remember it pretty well. i lived down the street from Patty Hearst when she helped rob that bank in sacramento, along with the Black Panthers. My dad was a racist. i remember watching Archie thinking my dad is a kook! i sure liked play'in basketball and baseball with blacks growing up! They wher'nt robots! But they sure could do the Robot!
Peace!
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
After 23 hours in labor and watching the baby's heart monitor slow
OhYea! Well my baby took 33 hrs. And the baby's heart slowing isn't necessarily a bad thing, they can be jus taking a rest waiting for the next onslaught
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Man, thats awhile. Quite the experience too. Very few things go as planned some times, but the kids worth it.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
The individuals who own Hobby Lobby as a closely held corporation . Go and find their names in the SCOTUS ruling .
Are you suggesting the owners of this business lack legal standing in this case?
The decision states:
It held that the Greens’ businesses are “persons” under RFRA,
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
I am suggesting that the entity that had the standing, and gained the advantage, was the CORPORATION, not the people. The entity whose religious values were found to be inferior were actual people.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Thus, the effect of the SCOTUS decision yesterday costs any Hobby Lobby employee who seeks the particular birth control not offered through the employer perhaps 30% more than the list price, because of the tax disadvantage. It's still largely a small amount, but sometimes precision matters.
Ah, the financial argument. So what you are saying, John, is that a law that required everyone with your last name to pay, say, $30 to vote----you would support that, because it isn't much money?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Disallowing a government benefit?
THE MORNING AFTER PILL??????????????????????????
No, Payment for it. Which all other women in America have access to, except the employees of the winners of this lawsuit.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
I'm still waiting for Dr. F to apologize for propagating the myth that this decision applied to Walmart. No one who read the decision (as opposed to reading liberal propaganda) would say that (at least if they understood what they read).
All over the media today: "Closely held corporation" is actually in the majority decision several times, of which WalMart is unquestionably one.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I'm not keeping up with this fast moving thread.
reproductive rights, what they are and who gets to control them, is an issue that is much older than human culture.
sexual dimorphism often is the means of resolving the issues of control ("might makes right")
there are very different perceptions, male and female, regarding responsibilities having to do with sex and reproduction
men seem to be "free to roam" and "sew their wild oats" under the guise of "boys will be boys"
women are expected to "protect their virginity" while waiting for "prince charming" or suffer the judgement that they are "sluts" who deserve no respect
that is a male view of the issue, and one that seems to resonate with the court
an abortion makes a lot of societal sense, the production of unwanted children places a very large burden on society. most pregnancies end in abortion, naturally, only a tiny fraction of abortions are medical. abortion is the most likely outcome of conception. and even though this is natural, women still are perceived as being responsible.
it is not surprising that women get the majority of the "blame" for medical abortions
why is that? last time I looked it still took "two to tango", where is the male responsibility?
it is pretty much absent and the women are stuck with all the judgmental bullsh#t
in fact an other criminal persecution of women, prostitution, seems to avoid of the fact men are customers, but men are unlikely to be persecuted, it might not even be illegal. why is that?
so it comes as no surprise that the SCOTUS majority had no female justices concurring, and that the majority thought it a good idea to validate religious objections to the exercise of individual liberties, in this case, the liberty a woman exercises in choosing to control reproduction. this liberty is not abstract to a woman, it is to a man, and our behavior as a society recognizes men's abstract notions of reproductive rights trumping women's practical involvement in reproduction.
I think it is impossible to view this decision in any other way, it allows a company that enjoys protections and rights under federal law to discriminate against a class of citizens (women) based on religious belief.
It finds that the protection of the liberty to practice religion is more fundamental than the protection of reproductive liberty. It could only find so because one class is dominated by men and the other exclusively by women.
It would be nice to think we could be moving into the 21st century rather than holding fast to unexamined cultural practices that are more than two thousand years old.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
It's uncomprehensible that a Supreme Court decides that
1) women's health care can be excepted on a religious basis
2) an entity as a company can hold religious beliefs
3) that religion is allowed to interfere with legislature
4) that only women's health care are given disadvantages
5) that only ONE religion is taken into consideration, if taking religiously based legal decisions
How long before you have christian sharia laws?
Lolli, we've had them for a VERY long time. The problem is weaning people off them.
it's because they KNOW the will of God.
They KNOW that women cant make decisions, and shouldn't vote.
They KNOW that blacks and whites should not mix.
They KNOW that blacks should keep their place.
They KNOW that gays made that choice.
but we are slowly changing the landscape. It is GOD's work. :)
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
why should a devout Catholic, who believes that supporting contraception and elective abortion may place his soul in danger of eternal damnation, be forced to offer an insurance policy to his employees that offers contraception and elective abortion?
Because by incorporating, they derive many special protections from the US Gov't: they cannot be personally sued, they have a different tax rate, etc.
They agree to abide by the laws of the US and the State that apply to the business that they are in, including laws that involve insurance of employees.
If they are not willing to do that, to be law abiding, they should find another occupation.
why does an employee not work somewhere else that provides such benefits, if they prefer health benefits that provide contraception services and possible elective abortions??
here's one for you: If a female employee is raped on the job, and gets pregnant, that would be a worker's comp injury. Should the work comp pay for an abortion, if that is her choice? Should an employer such as you describe be able to pick and choose what work comp covers?
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
Evil corporations. Religion and the gov'mnt mixing it up again.
We could have birth control bubble gum and abortion popsicles, but THEY hide the truth from us. Who has rights?
Money does. Almost full access.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
just let the Feds give out all the vouchers they want for free, safe abortions and for free birth control pills, it's no big deal
so what is the big deal you seem to imply?
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2014 - 12:19am PT
|
I'm sure the OP can think of lots of idiotic things to say about Sweden
please oblige us
You find this idiotic too? Why, by your posts I believed you thought it a good decision. Good for you.
Oh yeah, there's plenty of things one can say about Sweden which could be handled better. Plenty. But that's rarely of any great interest on an almost all American site. You couldn't care less as it doesn't affect your lives. A few would find it interesting and write a few posts, but then the thread slides into American matters again. Understandable, that's what matters to most people here. Believe me, been there, done that. :-)
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
It would be nice to think we could be moving into the 21st century rather than holding fast to unexamined cultural practices that are more than two thousand years old.
Thats just it, these practices have been tried and tested and proven to be true for 2000 yrs! How long has this pill,when digested kills a human being and who knows what else to the mother down the road, how long has it been around?
Maybe little girls should be taught how special it is to to give birth to a human being. They might not take sex so for granted. My daughter has had seperated parents since after birth, and i still think its way more marvelous than finding and naming a star. i don't know why a girl would want to have a baby these days anyway, with people telling them their a piece of crap and they couldn't raise anything that wasn't a BURDEN on society. is that how you feel about the worlds poverty stricken, that their not contributing to society and their wasting precious resources?
ED it; not meaning any disrespect to you personally, just ur opinion.
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2014 - 03:38am PT
|
BB,
Oh dear. No sex before marriage? What a sad life. Sex's so good, didn't ya know? And we, humankind, are wired into doing it.
The younger the stronger force, too. Better teach 'em how to not get into trouble. How to use protecion. And respect for each other.
It's a basic need. And it makes life so much happier.
And if you think romantic disappears because of feminism, well... It depends on you, man. YOU. Both of you. Don't blame anyone else. Use your fantasy. Because I really don't believe you're wanting to say that only if your partner is held down, you can be a romantic. One can do all those small things to show love and happy surprises and everything with an equal partner too, you know. And the sex is far better. :-)
Edit: A wanted child is one of the great joys of life. Here lies maybe the difference in our opinion. I think a child born has the right to be wanted. If a child is to be born or not is not the decision of some other people anywhere. The only people who matters in this issue is the mother and father. The child has a right to be welcome into the world.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2014 - 07:35am PT
|
Sullly,
;-)
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
I,ve had the joy of watching two births now, both c-section and both very different. My own opinion, and what my kids will learn from me, is that they should not be having sex as teenagers, but also how to protect themselves if they do.
If your religion tells you otherwise, good for you. Thats your morality, and you can pray about what to do with your pregnant teen if it happens. I simply prefer to make my own choices, thank you.
Now where we have a problem is when we try and restrict each other,s choices and actions based on our own moral opinions. Hobby Lobby is restricting the choices of their employees based on their religious beliefs. How is that different than restricting what a woman can wear in some muslim faith? Cause most of you good moral christian types would be all over that.
|
|
John Duffield
Mountain climber
New York
|
|
equal opportunity
http://dailycurrant.com/2014/07/01/hobby-lobby-stones-gay-employee-to-death/
Managers at a Hobby Lobby store in Arkansas stoned to death an employee today for being gay.
According to a report in the Ozark Post-Gazette, the store’s management decided to execute Jeremy Gleason, 43, in an alley behind the store in accordance with the Biblical verse Leviticus 20:13, which commands believers to kill homosexual men.
The assailants reportedly tied Gleason to a pole and threw large chunks of granite and whole bricks at his body. An autopsy later revealed the adoptive father of 2 young children died of blunt force trauma to the head.
|
|
Happiegrrrl2
Trad climber
|
|
Maybe little girls should be taught how special it is to to give birth to a human being. They might not take sex so for granted
*Maybe* little BOYS should be taught how special it is to to give birth to a human being. They might not take sex so for granted.
Most girls DO NOT take sex for granted, and they FULLY understand how special it is to give birth to another human being. Even ME, who has never had a pregnancy, understands that.
*Maybe* little boys should be taught to respect the concerns of a young woman when she says "I'm worried about pregnancy," and take responsibility for the joint venture they are about to embark upon, instead of pressuring them to go forward unprotected.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Most girls DO NOT take sex for granted
Many teenage boys would sadly agree with that statement.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Yes, a womans body is a touchy subject. But only if you treat her right.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Repost to this thread when they are teens and doing exactly as you tell them.
:-)
Tami for the win!
There seems to be an awful lot of people telling other people what they ought to do. Knowing how well that works among climbers (see any thread regarding climbing style or ethics) should give us a clue how well that works with humans in general. I'd have better luck commanding my cat.
John
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Ha! Sure thing. Ya did catch the second part of that, right?
My point is that we dont have much business telling each other what to do, but HL is doimdng just that to their employees, being granted special exception to an otherwise general rule.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
I'm still waiting for Dr. F to apologize for propagating the myth that this decision applied to Walmart. No one who read the decision (as opposed to reading liberal propaganda) would say that (at least if they understood what they read).
All over the media today: "Closely held corporation" is actually in the majority decision several times, of which WalMart is unquestionably one.
Ken, sorry, but it's not. You and FM and and DF repeating it doesn't make it true.
FM said something about Investopedia claiming that Walmart is a closely held corporation. I asked FM for a cite--he never responded. Here's what Investopedia says about it.
Definition of 'Closely Held Corporation'
Any company that has only a limited number of shareholders. Closely held corporation stock is publicly traded on occasion, but not on a regular basis. These entities differ from privately owned firms that issue stock that is not publicly traded. Those who own shares of closely held corporations should consult a financial planner with expertise in the tax and estate ramifications that come with owning this type of stock.
See http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/closely-held-corporation.asp
Walmart has an unlimited number of shareholders and its stock is publicly traded on the NYSE every freaking day, it's being traded now as we speak.
Case closed?
(The "IRS Definition" is a red herring--there's no reference to it whatsoever in the Supreme Court decision, and the majority opinion describes the ownership structure of the companies involved in the Hobby Lobby decision to show that all ownership, not just over 50%, and control is in the hands of the founding, nuclear family. The IRS definition may have applicability in matters before it, but the IRS doesn't define the meaning of words in other matters.)
Here's an article with a somewhat useful distinction between a closely held corporation and a publicly held corporation, please read it and stop wasting time bickering.
http://business-law.freeadvice.com/business-law/corporations/close_corporation.htm
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
All over the media today: "Closely held corporation" is actually in the majority decision several times, of which WalMart is unquestionably one.
Ken, sorry, but it's not.
Sorry, Blah, but a guy whose only chops for making financial statements is looking on the internet for things that support you, has no credibility in my book.
I stated that I head/saw that all over the media, in such places as the Financial Times, WSJ, Economist, Bloomberg News...and that is true. You may think that you have the expertise to counteract opinions of actual financial people, but anyone who is unwilling to put their name to their opinions doesn't impress me with their credibility
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Ken, OK, you don't believe Investopedia (a widely used and respected online resource.). How about you just read the freaking Wikipedia entry and stop bickering!
This is not rocket science! A publicly traded company is not a "closely held corporation" in the context of the Hobby Lobby decision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_held_company
A privately held company or close corporation is a business company owned either by non-governmental organizations or by a relatively small number of shareholders or company members which does not offer or trade its company stock (shares) to the general public on the stock market exchanges, but rather the company's stock is offered, owned and traded or exchanged privately. More ambiguous terms for a privately held company are unquoted company and unlisted company.
The Wikipedia article goes on to set forth the largest privately held companies (a synonym for closely held in this context, if not in all contexts). See any company that is missing?
Koch Industries, Bechtel, Cargill, Publix, Pilot Corp., Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (one of the members of the Big Four accounting firms), Hearst Corporation, S. C. Johnson, and Mars are among the largest privately held companies in the United States. KPMG, the UK accounting firms Ernst & Young and PricewaterhouseCoopers, IKEA, Trafigura, J C Bamford Excavators (JCB), Lidl, Aldi, LEGO, Bosch, Rolex and Victorinox are some examples of Europe's largest privately held companies
If your argument now is that Investopedia, Wikipedia, the Hobby Lobby decision itself (majority opinion and dissent) are all wrong but you, FM, Dr. F, and various uncited Internet resources are right, I think we're at loggerheads. Good day!
Edit:
Ken, a final, serious question to you:
Will you at least agree that the Investopedia and Wikipedia definitions that I posted above both:
(1) perfectly describe the ownership of the companies involved in the Hobby Lobby decision, and
(2) exclude Walmart?
If you are honest enough to do that, can you explain that?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Ken,
I'm about finished my lunch break and I was trying to find some (any) of those references that you claim say that Walmart is a closely held corporation in the context of Hobby Lobby.
I couldn't, but I came across an MSNBC article.
This dispute is over now, if it ever really existed.
Will you apologize for trying to fool people on ST? I see that Dr. F and FM just ran away, but I think you have more self respect than that.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/every-way-the-supreme-court-could-rule-hobby-lobby
The next question would be how far the court’s exemption would sweep beyond Hobby Lobby and Conestoga. Could even large, publicly traded companies like Taco Bell and Wal-Mart claim religiosity to get out of complying with the law? At oral argument, Chief Justice John Roberts said that is a “question that we’ll have to await [in] another case,” but added, “[that] sort of situation, I don’t think is going to happen.” So probably no Wal-Mart opt out – yet.
The court could rule even more narrowly than restricting exemptions to privately held companies – it could limit the exemption to companies that are as visible about their religious expression as Hobby Lobby or its sister company, a Christian bookstore, are.
Edit:
Dave, if you are interested in this, would you care to address the last point I made in the post right above yours, as well as article in this post?
There is really no question here, notwithstanding the red-herring IRS "definition" (I have no context for that "definition," it looks like it's from something directed to small businesses--it may have some applicability in IRS matters, but that doesn't mean squat in terms of the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision).
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
All they did here was create confusion.
I thought that was the raison d'etre of lawyers?
Confusion = complications = job security.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
But none of this changes the fact that the majority opinion on the Hobby Lobby ruling is an illogical mess.
Therein lies the rub. The court's majority is trying to preserve the free exercise of religion in an area (for profit corporations) where logic dictates the absence of religious exercise.
While I doubt that anyone seriously thinks the parade of horribles is likely to happen, I do expect subsequent decisions to limit this case to its facts to make sure those horrendous hypotheticals do not happen. In particular, I expect subsequent cases to deny free religious exercise protection for any corporation whose stock is publicly traded.
Those who like to simplify this case, by saying it makes an exception to the rules by which the rest of us live, miss the issue. We have conflicting rules. We all live by the Commerce and Tax clauses of the Constitution, but we also all live by the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion. What do we do when these rules produce a different result, depending on which takes precedence?
My objection to the majority's opinion comes down to the impracicality of ad hoc jurisprudence. The California Supreme Court in the late 1960's and the 1970's was particularly prone to such jurisprudence in all areas. This made nothing certain, and everything litigable. This may have been good for attorneys, but it made business difficult and expensive.
While I understand the majority's desire to protect the religious liberty of Hobby Lobby's owners, I think the damage to the law from this ruling outweighs the majority's attempt to reach a perfect result in every case.
John
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
I looked at the oral argument transcripts, and I'll copy the relevant part below.
It is clear as a bell that Chief Justice Roberts does not believe that the Hobby Lobby decision applies to publicly traded corporations (which I think we can all agree that Walmart is).
This is really over now.
(For those of you who don't know, an "S Corporation" is one that has a limited number of shareholders, among other requirements, and is thus "closely held.")
Whatever else Walmart is or isn't, it's a "large publicly traded corporation."
As Justice Roberts explains, the issues raised by a "large publicly traded corporation" will "await another case."
Therefore, Hobby Lobby doesn't apply to Walmart (unless you think that Chief Justice Roberts also doesn't know what "closely held" means).
Time to stick a fork in this one folks.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, that's his
12 argument for distinguishing it. But there are others,
13 including the fact that it is more you avoid all of the
14 problems with what to do if it's a you know, there's
15 a 51 percent ownership of the shareholders, if you
16 simply say that it's in this type of Chapter S
17 Corporation that is closely held. Whether it applies in
18 the other situations is is a question that we'll have
19 to await another case when a large publicly traded
20 corporation comes in and says, we have religious
21 principles, the sort of situation, I don't think, is
22 going to happen.
DF-- a "controlled company" does not equal "closely held."
"Held," in this context, means ownership.
Also, I am not what people would call a "business lawyer" or "corporate lawyer"; I'm an IP (intellectual property) guy, for better or worse.
The transcript I posted above is really irrefutable (and I learned of it from the MSNBC article, which is equally irrefutable.
Just let it go guys, lick your wounds and move on!
|
|
dindolino32
climber
san francisco
|
|
We should be more worried about big corporations than big government. Elections offer a chance for turnover whereas CEOs are in it for much longer. Corporations will do anything to get our money. Trust me, I work for one. And I've never met a boss that told me that our stock holders want the best for the greater good.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Elections offer a chance for turnover
So does a compost heap.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Based on your citation, it seems he really never bothered to understand what it means.
But it seems the debate is over because you have declared yourself the victor.
OK, Roberts and I (and that other pillar of conservatism, MSNBC) are wrong, and you guys are right. Happy now?
(Or you may wish to consider that the IRS blurb that you refer to, apparently now your last straw, doesn't seem to be part of any federal law or regulation, but rather appears in some IRS help manual that is apparently intended to assist small business owners. I know you're not a lawyer, but even you should be able to understand that an IRS publication is not binding on the Supreme Court. This is true in any context, but is especially true when there is no IRS issue in the case! Therefore, it may be useful to consider what "closely held" means both in normal business contexts (hence my reference to Wikipedia and Investopedia) and more specifically under the facts at issue in the Hobby Lobby case.)
|
|
Michelle
Social climber
1187 Hunterwasser
|
|
Honestly, I haven't read all the posts yet but id like to say a few things.
Jul 1, 2014 - 07:41am PTTo start with the statements on the op are completely at odds with the facts.First of all, Hobby Lobby (really the family that owns it) had no problem with birth control coverage, it was paying for abortions that they objected too. (both surgical and chemically induced)
the fact is the HL considers birth control that impedes the implantation of a fertilized egg equal to abortion. Not all birth control does this.
To the idiot who said we should just put all women on the pill... Your ignorance and masochism are hanging out. Go develop a male pill, eh? Fu.ck you.
I'd like to see this challenged as a HIPPA violation.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Walmart . . . [is] publically traded, so is not covered in the SCOTUS ruling
Fine that's good enough for me, just as long as the ST record is corrected, I'm satisfied.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
We should be more worried about big corporations than big government. Elections offer a chance for turnover whereas CEOs are in it for much longer. Corporations will do anything to get our money. Trust me, I work for one. And I've never met a boss that told me that our stock holders want the best for the greater good.
I couldn't disagree more. The only corporations with which I am forced to do business are those granted a government monopoly, such as PG&E in the Fresno area. Even there, though, solar power minimizes my transactions with the local monopolist.
Otherwise, I hold an election -- in which I am the only voter -- every day, and often many times a day. I choose with whom I do business, and on what terms. If they offer me a "take it or leave it" deal, I'm free to leave. The government offers no such options. If the government selects the 66th best way to do somoething, it will prevent anyone from doing it any other way.
Besides, corporations cannot extort me legally, as the Government can and does daily.
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
While I pay may taxes because I think I should, and because I'm grateful for what government provides, I'm also aware that the government says, in effect, "Nice life you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it, like we took all you own and threw you in the slammer. . . If you just pay us, though, we'll protect you from anyone that would try to do that to you."
The government has the legal power to do that, and corporations do not.
John
|
|
John Duffield
Mountain climber
New York
|
|
well if women are outraged they havta pay for their own Birth Control now, wait until Sharia Law comes to a location near them, and ISIS tells them, they need to stay indoors due to "modesty".
|
|
John Duffield
Mountain climber
New York
|
|
eff me, it looks like the drive in movie version
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
Whaevah Dr. FAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lose some weight and then go buy some tampons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lol lol lol !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
Anyone that just comes on to stalk others so they can call them names is about the pussyest thing I can think of.
lol!
could also end up in the court house!!
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-expanded-hobby-lobby-20140702-column.html#page=1
Danger sign: The Supreme Court has already expanded Hobby Lobby decision
The Supreme Court wasted no time in delivering a message to anyone who thought its Hobby Lobby ruling was limited to religious objections to coverage of purported abortion methods:
You're wrong.
The day after handing down the Hobby Lobby decision on Monday, the court issued orders pertaining to six pending cases in which employers claimed religious objections to all contraceptive services required under the Affordable Care Act. The court either ordered appeals courts to reconsider their rejection of the employers' claims in light of the Hobby Lobby decision, or let stand lower courts' endorsement of those claims.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
So this SCOTUS expansion of the decision is EXACTLY the slippery slope of which Lollie wrote.
So how do you conservatives now feel about the SC decision to abolish insurance payment for ANY contraceptives??
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
There is no slippery slope. I've been repeatedly instructed as such in the gun threads.
F*#k Hobby Lobby.
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 3, 2014 - 12:30am PT
|
sullly, I missed BOTH mine, have to reschedule for them.
|
|
SC seagoat
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, or In What Time Zone Am I?
|
|
Original intent from OP:
A thread for women's rights and stuff like that. (Post positivity too!)
Now we are on to who Farouk really is, Tennessee Jews etc. Why do I even get surprised anymore??
Guess I have some bedtime reading to catch up on to figure it all out.
Continue on....
Susan
|
|
John Duffield
Mountain climber
New York
|
|
The map is interesting.
Really. I saw it, and the way this ISIS, just swept across a big chunk of the earth, and I'm feeling a lot better about the second ammendment.
|
|
goatboy smellz
climber
लघिमा
|
|
This is what happens when you take the Boob Thread away, Scalia was a big fan.
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
I'm taking a poll:
Who takes the responsibility for preventing procreation in your relationship?
 Having no sex at the moment.. This has been a standing rule for many more years than needs to be mentioned here for the safety of the innocent.
Have you ever been in a long term relationship where you always wore a condom as well as collaborated with your partner using a spermicide to raise the effectiveness of conds to resemble the effectiveness of birth control?
Yes - I have been in a long term relationship in the past... We were young and dumb so no on condoms and no collaboration with the CP...
If your female partner and you are sure you are finished having children why havent you had a vasectomy if you havent?
I have never had the urge to procreate. I've never felt that I was knowledgable or confident enough to raise a child...
If men bore equal responsibility for prevention of pregnancy there wouldnt be any resistance to providing women this prescription. It isnt about finances. Finances are a smoke screen.
I agree 100%. Strange that we are not talking about the religious freedom to not pay for any vasectomies... Not to mention that women do not have as easily accessible contraception (condoms are in the locker room in HS these days, I don't remember seeing any in my school days), it the roles were reversed and men had to do what women are expected to do to get contraception? They'd be shittin mad, I suspect.
A while back a pharmacy in el paso tx refused to fill contraception rx for women. This scotus interpretation is coming from that same rationale.
How many women should stop supporting that pharmacy?
Cheers all
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
Isn't Shariah law a sincerely held religious belief? Would a closely-held Islamic Fundamentalist corporation be allowed to lop off hands of thieves?
Someone mentioned that this law doesn't apply to Walmart, why not?
Religious opposition to war and defense spending is a poor comparison because the ruling doesn't address all the things the gov. pays for with our money.
We need single payer national health care for economic reasons, not to support socialist ideals. If it's a better system for all citizens, economically, would you oppose it based on spite of a perceived "free ride"? And it would also solve the problem with this ruling.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000bb-1
42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 - Free exercise of religion protected
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
-(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
-(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
Article III.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
funny, I can't find a mention of "closely held companies" in Article III
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 4, 2014 - 01:37am PT
|
There's so many good points in this thread. (No, I don't mean you, scrubbing bubbles)
And Ed, that's a very interesting question. What if the Supreme Court takes a decision which doesn't have support by law? That's the end, isn't it? The law has to be clarified instead?
That's what happens here. For instance, there's been a extremely stupid decision with unwanted consequences about building and zoning, so now we're preparing an altering of a paragraph so it can't be any question about how it is meant. They didn't think far enough. With one stroke they made a lot of until now legal buildings illegal, which can cause much trouble for regular citizens. We don't doubt the Riksdag will pass that change but with complete unanimity. But since the court ruled like it did, there's no other choice.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Lollie,
here, it really depends. the vast majority of the decisions the US SC makes, are on Constitutional issues, so the only way to change that, is to amend the Constitution, an appropriately very difficult and time consuming process. Interestingly, the only ones approved since 1947 have had to do with elections.
However, the case under discussion is NOT a constitutional questions, it is a conflict between laws, so the offending law can simply be repealed or amended. That won't happen while the Repugs control either house of congress or the Presidency, but it will happen at some point. It could also happen if there is a replacement of a conservative justice with a liberal one. (or another woman, likely)
You are correct in that once the SC has spoken, that's the end of court cases, unless they've simply sent it back down for retrial.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
By the way, the current HBO documentary "The Case Against 8", is amazingly powerful.
It's about the 5 year process of overturning Prop 8 from California. David Bois and Ted Olson are amazing.
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 4, 2014 - 02:06pm PT
|
When you give birth under a blanket.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
funny, I can't find a mention of "closely held companies" in Article III
Ed, if you care to explain why you think it's funny that you don't find a mention of "closely held companies" in Article III, perhaps I can try to explain or at least give my view.
It doesn't seem "funny" to me, under any definition of "funny."
The power of federal courts to decide the type of controversy that existed in the Hobby Lobby case is obvious and isn't questioned by anyone (at least by anyone who knows anything about American law).
Why the the Court in Hobby Lobby decided that the opinion only applied to closely held companies is harder to explain. (And note that the decision doesn't define "closely held," although comments made by Chief Justice Roberts at oral argument almost certainly show that the Court does not view the decision as applying to public corporations.)
One slightly interesting point of law is that courts only decide the cases before them, and every case comes with a bundle of facts. Later cases that involve other facts aren't necessarily bound by the view of the court that decided a prior case. Although, the courts (and the Supreme Court in particular) have some discretion to state how broadly they at least think their decisions should be applied, and courts sometimes make explicit what facts guide a decision.
The Hobby Lobby case involved only closely-held corporations, at least as that term seemed to have meaning to the Supreme Court, and so it wasn't out of the ordinary for the Court to state that its decision only applies to closely-held corporations. Of course there has to be some connection between the facts of the case and the rule of law in the decision; it's not as if Court or someone else could legitimately argue that the Hobby Lobby decision only applies to companies with the initials "HL."
If you really want to understand the Hobby Lobby decision, I trust you have actually read the decision? If so and you still have questions, feel free to post up and we'll see if I or anyone else here can shed any light.
If your question is why the Court expressly limited its holding to closely held companies, that's a good one and doesn't have a simple answer, at least that I can give. Perhaps it's some sort of compromise whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should apply to corporations at all--perhaps legitimate views could be advanced that it shouldn't apply to any corps and or that it should apply to all corps, and the decision that it should apply to closely held corps just tickled the Hobby Lobby majority's fancy as a compromise. But there may be some legitimacy. For example, it was deemed significant whether the corporation's beliefs were "sincerely held." It's relatively easy to see how a closely-held corporation (one generally defined as having a limited number of owners) can have a sincerely-held belief--every owner could declare what his or her belief is. It's somewhat harder to see how a corporation having an unlimited number of owners that change all the time (e.g., a public corporation such as Walmart) could have a sincere belief.
Whether that's a good basis to make a distinction can certainly be argued; it would be reasonable to say that whatever the corporation (acting through its officers) says its beliefs are is the end of it, and who cares how many owners there are. But again, as a matter of jurisprudence, having a court state that its decision is limited to a certain fact of facts that were at issue in the case is a completely unexceptional occurrence.
|
|
overwatch
climber
|
|
Good job handling the latest troll, lollie
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
funny = odd
in my usage,
and subsection (c) refers to Article III of the constitution
now I totally understand there is law governing the standing of corporations, etc...
but the law says a determination has to be made based on "a compelling governmental interest" and be implemented in "the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
since the interest of the government is providing essential health care to half the US population of real people against the dubious interests of a "corporation" (which is not a real person) it is difficult to see how the ruling was arrived at.
The law in question does not interfere with the ability of that business to engage in commerce in any way.
If Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for the health care of its workers, it can choose not to. But I don't see how they get to essentially re-write the law based on the business owner's beliefs, and claim that those beliefs are held by the fictitious "corporation/person"
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..."
and apparently this wasn't a very narrow ruling, we now have Wheaton College...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/politics/supreme-court-order-suspends-contraception-rule-for-christian-college.html
not a "closely held" anything...
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
So.... if the corporation is now responsible for representing the individual literally and legally, where does that put the notion of limited liability?
It may seem to be a matter of "having your cake and eating it too," but I've never heard any legitimate view that corporate limited liability is in danger (and in any event, that's really a matter of state rather than federal law).
But keep in mind: corporate limited liability doesn't mean that human beings who commit wrongdoing are immunized from their wrongdoing just because they work for (or own) a corporation, either civilly or criminally. It essentially means that an investor is simply limited to losing up to the value of the his investment, but no more. (And that means in his or role as in investor--if the investor is involved in the operation of the company, he is generally liable for his conduct.)
(And as a minor aside, don't be misled by the "five or less controlling owners" business--the IRS thing is a red herring and there is no reason to suppose the Supreme Court adopted whatever the IRS definition may be rather than the general definition of "closely held," but I've already explained this enough times and if anyone still disagrees with me, that's fine, we'll just disagree.)
Ed:
Still not sure I completely understand your question/issue, but perhaps the following is relevant. (If not, well, I'm trying!)
Under federal law (and generally under state law, to my knowledge), the word "person" includes a corporation. I know that's somewhat of a legal fiction, and there are exceptions, but that's generally the way things work.
U.S. Code › Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 1
1 U.S. Code § 1 - Words denoting number, gender, and so forth
STATUS MESSAGE There are 5 Updates Pending. Select the tab below to view.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;
words importing the plural include the singular;
words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well;
words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present;
the words “insane” and “insane person” shall include every idiot, insane person, and person non compos mentis;
the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
“officer” includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office;
“signature” or “subscription” includes a mark when the person making the same intended it as such;
“oath” includes affirmation, and “sworn” includes affirmed;
“writing” includes printing and typewriting and reproductions of visual symbols by photographing, multigraphing, mimeographing, manifolding, or otherwise.
Edit:
Ed, if you haven't yet done so, and are really interested in this, you have to read the Supreme Court decision. You still may not agree with it, and that's fine. After all, 4 members of the Supreme Court didn't agree with it, so it's not as if the issue is clear cut.
But I think it will at least give greater understanding of what the various competing interests are.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
If you've already read it, then my comment obviously doesn't apply and my apologies, but I'm quite sure there are at least some posters on this thread (in fact, probably all or almost all, other than me) who seem to have strong opinions on this decision, but have not read it!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
the SCOTUS found in favor of a company, ruling that the right of a "company" to religious freedom is an over riding concern compared to the right to access health care for women.
It is not clear to me, in the usual concept of "company," that it can have a religious belief.
Perhaps you can explain that.
from the ruling you linked above:
(1) HHS argues that the companies cannot sue because they are for-profit corporations, and that the owners cannot sue because the regulations apply only to the companies, but that would leave merchants with a difficult choice: give up the right to seek judicial protection of their religious liberty or forgo the benefits of operating as corporations. RFRA’s text shows that Congress designed the statute to provide very broad protection for religious liberty and did not intend to put merchants to such a choice. It employed the familiar legal fiction of including corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons,” but the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees. Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them. Pp. 16–19.
I liked the line: "but the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees"
yet there is no discussion of how the rights of the employees benefit from the ruling, or the shareholders (there may be none). It would seem that the employees are not required to hold the same religious views as the owners, and are now being denied an essential part of health care. If corporations are considered "persons" it is not just a consideration of the owners, but of all the people associated with the corporation. What is the argument for considering only a subset of those associates?
However, in the sense that the HHS Dept. will provide that part of health care directly to the employees is encouraging, it takes us closer to a "single payer" system... incrementally for sure.
I don't think that Hobby Lobby could refuse to pay taxes because it disagrees with the USG policies and programs. So in the end, it pays anyway.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Ed, got it--glad to see you did in fact read the opinion and have formed your own views, rather than just parroting the standard liberal party line that I suspect many ST'ers are doing.
If the HL majority couldn't persuade you (and all of the Supreme Court Justices are at least better-than-average lawyers, if nothing else), I doubt I can.
One thing we likely do agree on--this whole mess comes about because of the government-induced link between health care and employment (for those fortunate enough to get employer provided health care)--many of us are forced to buy our own health care using after-tax dollars, unlike employers who can deduct the expense (and employees are not required to report imputed income).
Remember that the Hobby Lobby women are in the worst case just in the same boat as tens of millions of other Americans who don't get employer tax-subsidized health care.
And in fact, as I think you recognize, it seems that the HL employees get the same benefits as employees who get full Obamacare because of various HHS programs (I have to admit, I don't really have a good handle on how that works).
Anyway, I'm off for fireworks, Happy 4th.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
I see you, Crowley. Rolf Harris, KaKa, Kiali Lie'e Pritchard, or whatever.
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 5, 2014 - 03:23am PT
|
overwatch
:-)
|
|
BooDawg
Social climber
Butterfly Town
|
|
The problem in the USA is that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are legal people, SO that is what federal law now says. The only solution is to amend the constitution such that corporations are not considered people and MONEY DOES NOT = FREE SPEECH!
MOVE TO AMEND! https://movetoamend.org/
It will take a grassroots awareness and support, just like it did when the slaves were freed and women got the vote!
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Dawg, nice sentiment, but such an amendment has NO POSSIBILITY of being enacted, sadly. I say this because of the process required. it will NEVER make it through that process, and a petition is not part of that, anyway.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
The problem in the USA is that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are legal people,
Shouldn't legal people be allowed to produce business in the realm of legal people under the liability clause of "corporation"?
"if i'm a private Building Contractor that takes on the heading of a corporation for liability purposes, why shouldn't i have the right to veto(or atleast try) some initiative the Gov injects as moral discourse?"
Hope i'm saying that right^^^?
isn't the difference between "closely held" being solely, personal, privately owned, compared to not, like that of GM Motors?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Shouldn't legal people be allowed to produce business in the realm of legal people under the liability clause of "corporation"?
Should they be able to do so at the expense of other legal people?
The test has always been that your right to wave your arms ends at my nose.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Should they be able to do so at the expense of other legal people?
Not sure i understand ur meaning?
But if i own a business, don't i have the right to proclaim "no shirt, no shoes, no service" to a Customer. Customer being the public.Even when the Government makes no pronouncement. So why can't i say something like "i'm not paying for your abortion even though the government said i should" to an employee that works for me, and a representative of my business?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
the quote from the ruling (see above) that pertains to the "personhood" of a corporation is:
"It employed the familiar legal fiction of including corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons,” but the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees. Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them."
what is interesting is that there is a logical jump from the first sentence to the second. The first sentence explains 'familiar legal fiction of including corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons...” to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees.'
there is no distinction made regarding the "people associated with the corporation." The familiar fiction would include all of the people associated with the corporation.
The second sentence makes a very significant restriction, however: "Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them." Which seems to include only those who own and control them, that would exclude the employees.
So in my view the SCOTUS majority in this ruling has made a choice to exclude from their consideration how this ruling "protects the rights of the employees" of the corporation, who are explicitly mentioned as a part of the "familiar legal fiction," that of a corporation having the status of a person.
Obviously, the employees' rights are not considered, and they are certainly not protected, in this ruling. The majority has ruled for part of the person, not all of that person. They seemed to skip explaining why.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
who are explicitly mentioned as a part of the "familiar legal fiction," that of a corporation having the status of a person.
So this would be meaningful in a dispute between Gov. and Corp.,
But in the case wit h Hobby, it's a conflict within the Corp.?
|
|
SteveW
Trad climber
The state of confusion
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2017 - 08:15pm PT
|
I'm all for women's rights. Period.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2017 - 08:39pm PT
|
Normally a post like Syrotax's would annoy me like a jock rash but thanks to the Evelyn Wood speed eating course it's just a quick study...
|
|
| Messages 1 - 256 of total 256 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!