View Full Version : The SCOTUS birth control debate
I for one am disgusted. This seems completely geared towards trying to control women's sexuality. Hobby Lobby owns stock in companies that manufacture birth control devices*, and I would imagine that a lot of their staff are lower-economic status women. So they just don't want to pay, which also makes no sense because pregnancy is a whole lot more expensive than birth control. Training new people to replace ones who leave because a low-end job at Hobby Lobby doesn't pay enough for day care is also expensive.
This will also spread. Further suits will likely challenge the "closely held" corporation status, and currently there are a number of other companies (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/30/after-hobby-lobby-these-77-corporations-will-drop-birth-control-coverage.html) whose cases have been pending in lower courts and who will now be freed of the "burden". Funny how there's no "burden" on other things that devoutly religious people might find objectionable: coverage of blood transfusions, products made from pigs, vaccines, etc. Never mind that the Bible actually does have something direct to say about not mixing fabrics (which Hobby Lobby sells) but nothing prohibiting birth control, abortion or IUDs directly. The latter has all been interpreted (by generally male clergy).
What I wonder is, at what point during an interview or offer negotiation would it be prudent to ask whether a company's health plans cover birth control? I mean, if you're applying to work at a Catholic church you can guess, but a random plastics company? I'll guess it's not something they advertise.
*hypocrisy (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers)
flowerseverywhere
6-30-14, 11:55pm
I can 100% understand why people opposed to abortion don't want any funds going to it, even though I feel it is each women's choice. But today's decision is such a blurry line between church and state I have a hard time understanding it.
Imagine you are a young married woman, and you try very hard to get a good job and end up at one of these places. You end up working very hard for low wages so it isn't easy to pay for birth control on your own. While the upper management is probably doing financially well, they are able to deny you an aspect of health care for all women, regardless of their situation. Their values may not align with your own but they are able to deny you based on their religious beliefs.
Horrible day for women in America. How are we better than the religious zealots in the Middle East and how they oppress women.
Anyone here read the text of the opinion?
flowerseverywhere
7-1-14, 12:08am
Anyone here read the text of the opinion?
I did and I can't help thinking it opens the door for all kinds of dissention.
ApatheticNoMore
7-1-14, 12:17am
I can understand abortion, but then I'm caught paying for a lot of things I find immoral like wars so* .... I do not understand at all whatsoever BIRTH CONTROL (as opposed to abortion). To oppose birth control is to be in favor of either abstinence from puberty to full menopause or enforced breeding. It's not actually to only be in favor of sex within marriage, because even within marriage if you don't want a kid you need some kind of birth control - duh. Sure oopsie is less catastrophic if you are in a committed relationship, but if you don't want kids, you don't want kids period (yes no birth control is 100% effective but effectiveness is pretty good combining methods or with the better methods).
Whether birth control is affordable out of pocket depends on one's wages and the type of birth control. Pills, condoms etc. can be had fairly cheaply but maybe not on poverty wages. IUDs (the most used birth control in the entire rest of the world - much more used elsewhere than the pill) or sterilization, not so much so.
* oh paying for what I do like wars actually distresses me a great deal, but much is part and parcel of the pressures of this world, far more a trap than it seems (ie no there aren't that many ways to actually lower your taxes etc.). Ok Obamacare may not exactly be a tax, and that's kind of a problem, because if it was a tax there would be no way they could weasle out of it based on moral objection (yea everyone objects to what their taxes are used for buddy ...) So with single payer there wouldn't have been a case.
What I wonder is, at what point during an interview or offer negotiation would it be prudent to ask whether a company's health plans cover birth control?
nah something glassdoor-ish maybe (how you get some sense of all you can't ask about) ... although if it's a standardized plan ..
Whether birth control is affordable out of pocket depends on one's wages and the type of birth control. Pills, condoms etc. can be had fairly cheaply but maybe not on poverty wages.
Seems to me free condoms are available at several discreet locations even in my remote rural community. The technology my wife and I choose costs $1.15/use (I just ordered another supply yesterday, which is why the price is at-hand...).
Minimum wage in Seattle is $15/hour, "poverty wages", and there are very few jobs in my community paying less than $15/hour at the moment - so $1.15 is about 4 minutes and 36 seconds of wage.
(I'm also still unclear why you want employers to be buying your healthcare for you, instead of giving you the money and allowing you to select the healthcare plan you desire.)
(I'm also still unclear why you want employers to be buying your healthcare for you, instead of giving you the money and allowing you to select the healthcare plan you desire.)
Having employers "own" your healthcare is a form of control as it is, with or without birth control provisos. Not-so-golden handcuffs.
Regarding the BC issue, I actually am not as angry about this as others, and see both sides. "Back in the old days" (when I needed BC), we always paid for it ourselves, so I don't have the mentality that it "should" be free through insurance. And of course, back in the old days when I was having my family, my first pregnancy was the results of a birth control malfunction, and after I had my kids, I spent the next 20 years on natural family planning (I'm such a good ex-Catholic) with no oopsies at all. I definitely believe in BC access and use by whoever wants to use it, and the more the better in this world, but I'm on the fence about employers being forced to offer it.
flowerseverywhere
7-1-14, 7:47am
(I'm also still unclear why you want employers to be buying your healthcare for you, instead of giving you the money and allowing you to select the healthcare plan you desire.)
that would solve the problem
I never understood why it should be free (paid for by your insurance). Unless they're trying to make sure that poorer people are sure to have it.
Seems like something that most people should be paying for themselves.
Miss Cellane
7-1-14, 8:17am
I never understood why it should be free (paid for by your insurance). Unless they're trying to make sure that poorer people are sure to have it.
Seems like something that most people should be paying for themselves.
Same for Viagra, I suppose.
(I'm also still unclear why you want employers to be buying your healthcare for you, instead of giving you the money and allowing you to select the healthcare plan you desire.)
An employer with lots of employees has increased leverage to get better deals on insurance and healthcare. And many employers self-insure to lower costs. And pre-ACA, many folks uninsurable on their own were still able to get healthcare through an employer.
Also it's much easier to chip away a money benefit than something like healthcare or a pension.
I guess if we all bought our own health insurance and didn't have to rely on a company to provide it for us at a subsidized rate, then this may be a mute issue. just saying....
I think this ruling represents a great day for religious liberty. SCOTUS has reminded an ever encroaching government that it is not OK to use its power to force people to violate their principles.
And I still wonder why there isn't a pill for men? Would the rules be any different then if they were the ones who had to be primarily responsible for birth control?
iris lilies
7-1-14, 10:44am
The SCOTUS ruling is narrow, and it's moderate. It recognizes that religious liberty is an important freedom of living in our country.
Hobby Lobby had to prove that their objection to morning-after and week-after pills were due to sincerely held religious tenants. They did that, and for those who are worried about a slippery slope (cough cough Hilary Clinton) most faceless corporations couldn't begin to meet that standard. Me, I shop at Hobby Lobby and know that they are closed on Sunday due to their religious beliefs because how often have I tried to go there on a Sunday!!?? haha. So yeah, it's obvious even to me.
Hobby Lobby objects to only medication that can prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb and this is considered abortion by some. If the ACA lumps this in with all other kinds of birth control, that's the problem of the ACA. Google "ACA bad legislation" for more on that.
Miss Cellane
7-1-14, 10:47am
I think this ruling represents a great day for religious liberty. SCOTUS has reminded an ever encroaching government that it is not OK to use its power to force people to violate their principles.
I'd feel more comfortable about supporting this decision if the Hobby Lobby corporation did not have investments in two pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the Plan B "morning after" contraceptive pill, the very pill they went to court to prevent having to allow their employees to get.
That's what you get when you appoint six practicing Catholics to the Supreme Court--no separation of church and state there. Even though Jesus never said a word about birth control or abortion (or gays, for that matter) The Hobby Lobby boys can save a little money pretending he did.
Oh, and all those cheap Chinese gimcracks Hobby Lobby sells? China is the world's leading promoter of abortion. Staggering hypocrisy.
ApatheticNoMore
7-1-14, 11:01am
Hobby Lobby objects to only medication that can prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb and this is considered abortion by some. If the ACA lumps this in with all other kinds of birth control, that's the problem of the ACA. Google "ACA bad legislation" for more on that
Noone knows that IUDs do this anymore than than the pill does, and they seem to object to them. I think it's really about $. IUDS for some women may be the single best birth control out there in terms of very few side effects (hormonal stuff can be pretty miserable) and effectiveness, if you have near $1000 to pay up front (otherwise hope the ACA pays :)). In countries with universal healthcare it's what women choose more often.
I don't personally have a problem with morning after pills either (at that point it's a clump of cells and I think people naturally often spontaneously abort such and so it's far more often that unprotected sex will lead to such a situation than having a condom break and rushing for the morning after pill or something). Surgical abortion of a fetus I would not want to go through with. But regardless of one's position on morning after pills - IUDs as far as anyone knows aren't any different in how they act than the pill, they just cost more up front (but not over the average use life) for the penny pinching companies that want an excuse to get out of paying.
gimmethesimplelife
7-1-14, 11:18am
Same for Viagra, I suppose.Good point. Rob
It seems that the idea here is "If you can't afford appropriate birth control on piss-poor Hobby Lobby wages, you should just forgo sex--which is filthy and disgusting, and shouldn't be had at all unless you're trying to conceive, and certainly shouldn't be enjoyed by women anyway."
It seems that the idea here is "If you can't afford appropriate birth control on piss-poor Hobby Lobby wages, you should just forgo sex--which is filthy and disgusting, and shouldn't be had at all unless you're trying to conceive, and certainly shouldn't be enjoyed by women anyway."
I think the idea here is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Once you let religion get its nose under the tent, you open up a big can of worms (how's that for a mixed metaphor?), as Justice Ginsberg explained. The Scientologists won't have to pay for psychoactive drugs, Seventh-day Adventists for transfusions--a precedent has been set, "narrow reading" notwithstanding. I think--half seriously--we should have a non-believer litmus test for justices.
It seems that the idea here is "If you can't afford appropriate birth control on piss-poor Hobby Lobby wages, you should just forgo sex--which is filthy and disgusting, and shouldn't be had at all unless you're trying to conceive, and certainly shouldn't be enjoyed by women anyway."
I'm a woman and believe in equal rights and never been barefoot and pregnant under the watchful eye of the Master of the House, but I respect individual and corporate POVs about pills that abort potential pregnancies. As the text said, there are other ways to get free/low-cost BC. I don't see anything in this that says that sex is filthy, disgusting or shouldn't be enjoyed by women. Jane, I see your hair standing up when I usually don't. That's cool..a different side of you.
I'm a woman and believe in equal rights and never been barefoot and pregnant under the watchful eye of the Master of the House, but I respect individual and corporate POVs about pills that abort potential pregnancies. As the text said, there are other ways to get free/low-cost BC. I don't see anything in this that says that sex is filthy, disgusting or shouldn't be enjoyed by women. Jane, I see your hair standing up when I usually don't. That's cool..a different side of you.
I was assiduous in avoiding pregnancy and was startled when my (excellent, union-bargained for) insurance paid for a tubal ligation at 29. I remember when contraception--never mind abortion--was unavailable. I will never take those rights for granted.
No, they rarely come out and say that (you have to read the back pages to find it--or listen to Rush Limbaugh), but I believe that's the subtext in all this male-driven abortion/contraception frenzy. I agree with someone else that it's all about control. (Speaking of control, I see that my generally low profile is working... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/rpg/vampire.gif )
ApatheticNoMore
7-1-14, 2:06pm
I'm a woman and believe in equal rights and never been barefoot and pregnant under the watchful eye of the Master of the House, but I respect individual and corporate POVs about pills that abort potential pregnancies.
the birth control pill? I've always earned decent money so it's neither here nor there, if EVERYONE earned incomes well into the middle class instead of say service level wages neither would paying for most forms of birth control out of pocket be a major issue (although surgical stuff like tubals would probably still be out of many people's reach. And it is also good side effect free birth control if one is absolutely certain they want permanent surgical birth control).
It annoys me that any woman should choose their birth control method purely because of money (and short term costs at that). What if one was morally opposed to overpopulation, could one then refuse to pay for an employee or spouses third childbirth or something? :) Maybe we should encourage women even more than men to pursue the careers where the money is - just to make sure they can get the bc they need (if they should ever choose to have heterosexual intercourse that is - nothing wrong with not wanting that for whatever reason - but that's probably not the majority). It seems to follow.
Good point, Apathetic No More. Most of us here can comment dispassionately on this issue, flush as we seem to be financially. I've never had to support myself on a minimum wage--though I have worked for one a couple of times--and I can't imagine how hard that must be.
Once you let religion get its nose under the tent, you open up a big can of worms (how's that for a mixed metaphor?), as Justice Ginsberg explained. The Scientologists won't have to pay for psychoactive drugs, Seventh-day Adventists for transfusions--a precedent has been set, "narrow reading" notwithstanding. I think--half seriously--we should have a non-believer litmus test for justices.
I think this is more a case of government sticking it's nose into religion's tent. This issue wouldn't have arisen absent an attempt to effectively nationalize health care.
I think this is more a case of government sticking it's nose into religion's tent. This issue wouldn't have arisen absent an attempt to effectively nationalize health care.
Without some nationalization of health care, it's just a matter of time until only the wealthy will be able to afford it. Culling the herd, eh?
Without some nationalization of health care, it's just a matter of time until only the wealthy will be able to afford it. Culling the herd, eh?
The Bill of Rights exists to protect us against just that kind of ends-justifies-the-means mindset. Even noble or worthwhile ends.
When you daydream about ideological litmus tests for the Court (all those Catholics, really!), I think you demonstrate the wisdom of the founders in creating all those inconveniences for arbitrary power.
It seems that the idea here is "If you can't afford appropriate birth control on piss-poor Hobby Lobby wages..."
After further reading, I must retract "piss-poor Hobby Lobby wages." As it turns out, their full time sales personnel can make fifteen dollars an hour--so pretty good for retail. Which doesn't change anything else...
Once you let religion get its nose under the tent, you open up a big can of worms (how's that for a mixed metaphor?), as Justice Ginsberg explained. The Scientologists won't have to pay for psychoactive drugs, Seventh-day Adventists for transfusions--a precedent has been set, "narrow reading" notwithstanding. I think--half seriously--we should have a non-believer litmus test for justices.I see this in just the opposite manner. Once you let government get its nose under the tent, you open up a big can of worms. Under what imperative should Scientologists be forced to pay for psychoactive drugs or Seventh-Day Adventists be forced to pay for transfusions?
For anyone who feels strongly about the separation of Church and State, shouldn't they feel just as strongly about the separation of State and Church?
The part I don't agree with is the "closely held" corporation thing. Why should what is in most respects a privately held business be able to get the limited liabilities of being a corporation?
The part I don't agree with is the "closely held" corporation thing. Why should what is in most respects a privately held business be able to get the limited liabilities of being a corporation?As I understand it there are several common sense benefits of incorporating a business, including the ability to separate business assets from personal assets, name or brand protection and perpetual existence, meaning that the corporation continues to exist even if ownership or management changes.
Many family businesses, from small to large are incorporated.
There is no requirement in the law that a corporation be a public corporation.
I agree with RosieTR. Be careful when your wish is granted. Next will be the decision that insurance plans don't have to include sterilization surgery because it's against their religious beliefs.
I actually had a doctor refuse to perform this procedure for me in my 30s. Turns out he was Catholic and felt it was against his religion. Fortunately there was a doctor within the same practice who had no such qualms, and also fortunately I live in a large urban area with many choices. But women in small rural areas? Forget it.
Therefore I also agree the subtext is control.
Finally, I think the last laugh will be on the insurance companies who now get to decide if they themselves will cover the cost of prescription birth control, or instead cover the cost of all of those unintended pregnancies. My guess? They've already done the math and the offer to cover the cost will be made.
ApatheticNoMore
7-1-14, 11:45pm
Finally, I think the last laugh will be on the insurance companies who now get to decide if they themselves will cover the cost of prescription birth control, or instead cover the cost of all of those unintended pregnancies. My guess? They've already done the math and the offer to cover the cost will be made
I don't know. They probably make good profit on babies, at least after they are born. They aren't sick often in most cases yet the parents will keep paying to keep them insured. The insurance companies probably see them as new customers.
ApatheticNoMore
7-2-14, 5:02am
Under what imperative should Scientologists be forced to pay for psychoactive drugs or Seventh-Day Adventists be forced to pay for transfusions?
Well at least it's consistent. One may have reasons to oppose psychoactive drugs but opposing them because you want to solve your psychological problems by removing the body thetans a cult founded by a Sci Fi author tells you you have based on an E-meter reading is pretty nutty. Saying people should die rather than accept blood transfusions that could save them, according to your morality, is pretty nutty. And saying ALL women should be either celibate, homosexual, or breeders their entire reproductive life is at least as nutty, even though some women may choose some of those things for part or all of their lives. If that belief system was regarded as deserving about as much social respect as L Ron's Scientology cult, it would be social progress. I think it would be good to work toward that day! Might as well have an ethical code that forbids breathing because it dirties too much oxygen.
The thing is it's like they don't' even realize how 100% useless as a moral code the belief systems they say deserve protection are (it's like the not breathing moral code - well yes that works for suicidal people but the non-suicidal portion of the population not so much so. It's also unworkable), and it's because they are men, and so they aren't even realistic about how birth control works (pills don't work immediately by regulating ovulation or even exclusively through that and IUDs don't just work by preventing implantation), nor understand how particularly a choice of birth control is often made and how much it needs to suit a womans body and personality (pills make you nauseous, mentally crazy, or no matter what can't seem to remember to take them daily - maybe they are not for you. IUDS expel more than once, or have horrible cramps that don't go away and endless bleeding - maybe they are not for you. Too terrified to ever go through with surgery - yea well probably should just resign to using another method then).
As I understand it there are several common sense benefits of incorporating a business, including the ability to separate business assets from personal assets, name or brand protection and perpetual existence, meaning that the corporation continues to exist even if ownership or management changes.
Many family businesses, from small to large are incorporated.
It's the separating business assets from personal assets I have a bit of an issue with - a corporation can fold leaving huge amounts of unpaid debts, environmental cleanup costs, etc, while the "owners" get to walk from the mess they created.
Miss Cellane
7-2-14, 8:23am
It's the separating business assets from personal assets I have a bit of an issue with - a corporation can fold leaving huge amounts of unpaid debts, environmental cleanup costs, etc, while the "owners" get to walk from the mess they created.
True. But a small family business with, say, five employees, can be hit hard by the economy, and need to close. If the owner's personal assets are counted in with the business assets to pay debts, the family could end up homeless.
I know someone who had a small store in a small town for 20 years. The town decided to re-route some of the streets in town, and while his street remained the same, it was right near the construction and was closed or only a single lane for weeks at a time, with no on-street parking. His business took a nose-dive because people simply didn't know he was open, or simply didn't want the hassle of parking several blocks away and walking.
He sold the building at a loss and moved to another town but business still hasn't picked up much yet in the new location. He's taken a second job to make ends meet.
This regulations helps people at times.
It's the separating business assets from personal assets I have a bit of an issue with - a corporation can fold leaving huge amounts of unpaid debts, environmental cleanup costs, etc, while the "owners" get to walk from the mess they created.
I guess the same could be said for individuals ability to walk away from debts through our bankruptcy laws, although we generally call that bankruptcy protection. I also wonder what effect it would have on our economy if we didn't encourage business development by providing a method for entrepreneurs to separate their personal assets from their business assets.
I personally thought the whole public vs private vs closely held discussion was rather pointless and never understood why for profit vs non-profit should matter at all. If the government is overstepping for one it is overstepping for all. It does not matter what the goals of the individual or entity are. The SCOTUS did what they had to do within the framework of our constitution; any other outcome playing by those rules would have been unjust. Kudos to them for that even as I remain an ardent supporter of a woman's right to choose whatever path is correct for her. If this is a slippery slope we started down it 240 years ago when {we} all agreed that certain rights were worth protecting from an encroaching government.
From the satellite view, about the only thing potentially more treacherous than big government is organized religion. Governments come and go, but religion is in it for the long haul. The Bible/Qur'an/Tanakh/etc. have already been best sellers for a very long time. I would also guess more atrocities have been committed in the name of God than in the defense of country, but that's probably just a strawman here.
Meanwhile, I'm off to the garden to work on my own moral code without the benefit of bureaucrats or fables, preachers, zealots or the ACA.
ApatheticNoMore
7-2-14, 12:15pm
The end result will be statistically American women will make very different birth control choices than the rest of the world does. Because in the rest of the world birth control is covered by the medical system but here it will be driven by what one can afford short term out of pocket. They *are* choices and I have no problem with women choosing whatever method of birth control (I don't like surgical abortion - and in case a bunch of rocks for brains men like they have on the Supreme Court don't get it - not being ok with aborting an actual fetus is WHY women often seek out highly effective birth control methods - but even then I can't see banning it working). But in America the choices will be driven by short term money needs (no money for anything but generic pills from Planned Parenthood even if another method is cheaper or better for you over a lifetime) and in the rest of the world they will be driven by non-monetary considerations as the medical system covers birth control. Mothers don't let your daughters grow up to be poor and I mean that!
It's pretty interesting that in the rest of the world a lot more methods and devices are often available as well.
I'd like to see the "freedom of conscience" argument work if it was paid for though taxes though "but IRS agent it's against my conscience to fund birth control with my taxes", "yea, yea, that's what Joe the pacifist who lives down the street said about the government buying drones ... he has the nutty belief they lead to the termination of a life. Just like you believe a clump of cells that might in an unlikely case be created is a human being, he has the nutty idea Muslims in the middle east are human beings. Can you believe it? Now I suggest you pay your taxes"
If the rules are that corporations pay for their employees' health care, this is should be covered. IUDs and pills are health care, and often used for treating conditions besides pregnancy: prevention of ovarian cancer, treating endometriosis, reducing pain and flow of menstruation, helping transition to menopause and controlling the timing of menstruation to name a few. If it were purely a case of "religious freedom" then the justices wouldn't have specifically isolated birth control. They did, and clearly stated that the decision did not apply to any other potentially religiously objectionable health treatment such as blood transfusions. Because Jehovah's Witnesses do not have sincere religious beliefs? Never mind that only individuals can have sincerely held beliefs of any kind....corporations can't go to church, after all.
ApatheticNoMore
7-2-14, 7:20pm
If it were purely a case of "religious freedom" then the justices wouldn't have specifically isolated birth control. They did, and clearly stated that the decision did not apply to any other potentially religiously objectionable health treatment such as blood transfusions. Because Jehovah's Witnesses do not have sincere religious beliefs?
although it would have been worse in the consequences as more medical care would be withheld, there's a part of me that really wishes it was broader. It would be pretty tasty to see ridiculous ideas on how women should live right there in the same bin as L. Ron. "Thetans , E-meters, and No Birth Control!" or alternatively "No Psychology, No Birth Control, No Blood Transfusions!" Now that's a rallying cry. Libertie, Equalitie, Franternitie ain't got nothing on that ...
I guess the same could be said for individuals ability to walk away from debts through our bankruptcy laws, although we generally call that bankruptcy protection. I also wonder what effect it would have on our economy if we didn't encourage business development by providing a method for entrepreneurs to separate their personal assets from their business assets.
I guess then sometimes it is acceptable and a good thing to force people to pick up the slack for other people's choices.
Kipling foresaw the Internet:
Road-Song of the Bandar-Log
Here we go in a flung festoon,
Half-way up to the jealous moon!
Don't you envy our pranceful bands?
Don't you wish you had extra hands?
Wouldn't you like if your tails were--so--
Curved in the shape of a Cupid's bow?
Now you're angry, but--never mind,
Brother, thy tail hangs down behind!
Here we sit in a branchy row,
Thinking of beautiful things we know;
Dreaming of deeds that we mean to do,
All complete, in a minute or two--
Something noble and wise and good,
Done by merely wishing we could.
We've forgotten, but--never mind,
Brother, thy tail hangs down behind!
All the talk we ever have heard
Uttered by bat or beast or bird--
Hide or fin or scale or feather--
Jabber it quickly and all together!
Excellent! Wonderful! Once again!
Now we are talking just like men!
Let's pretend we are ... never mind,
Brother, thy tail hangs down behind!
This is the way of the Monkey-kind.
Then join our leaping lines that scumfish through the pines,
That rocket by where, light and high, the wild grape swings.
By the rubbish in our wake, and the noble noise we make,
Be sure, be sure, we're going to do some splendid things!
... If it were purely a case of "religious freedom" then the justices wouldn't have specifically isolated birth control. They did, and clearly stated that the decision did not apply to any other potentially religiously objectionable health treatment such as blood transfusions. I believe that any court, even the Supreme, can only rule on the case brought before it. Perhaps the Jehovah's Witnesses will bring their own suit to the court for clarification.
JC Penney is next:
http://www.moonmontchronicle.com/supreme-court-rules-jcpenney-allowed-to-sacrifice-employees-to-appease-cthulhu.html
While Hilary Clinton refuses to commit to running for President, she runs for President giving speeches like this:
“It’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who need contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception,” Clinton said
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-ruling-hillary-clinton-108460.html#ixzz36NhJp7xz
Never mind that it's not true, the sales clerk at Hobby Lobby can get all of these forms of birth control through their employer:
Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381637/hobby-lobby-actually-lavishes-contraception-coverage-its-employees-deroy-murdock
Hilary is a likely candidate for our next President and we'll get much more of this stuff, pandering to the crowd that believes Nanny G must be involved in dictating all aspects of life. Yay, us.
ApatheticNoMore
7-3-14, 3:13am
“It’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who need contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception,” Clinton said
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...#ixzz36NhJp7xz
Never mind that it's not true, the sales clerk at Hobby Lobby can get all of these forms of birth control through their employer:
Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants
It's effectively true if the birth control method you want is an IUD. I don't regard those birth control methods as interchangeabile and I doubt many gynos would either, because they aren't. The whole "women should only choose from the limited menu of birth control we provide them for no scientific reasons whatsoever" is probably the single most offensive thing in the entire debate. And really the birth control methods available including IUDs at present are better than forced pregnancy but many women regard them as a fairly lousy set of options to begin with, all have risks, side effects, imperfections etc.. Ok some of that is just current scientific progress (it is what it is), some of that is hormonal birth control not having been developed for men - ha!, and some other countries do have a few more variations on the same basic themes than allowed in the U.S.
Not interchangable: You get lower doses of hormones with a hormonal IUD than with most other forms of hormonal birth control (it sits right in the uterus) and their effectiveness rates are greater than the pill, and copper IUDs are the most effective hormone free birth control on the planet short of sterilization - and unlike sterilization they are almost always 100% reversible and immediately so (unless you get weird complications - a tiny risk)..
Never mind that the belief systems your employer uses to exclude certain birth control methods might as well come from the voices in their head because they are pretty irrational (the ghost of Elvis in their head told them IUDs are bad .... very very bad ... and so they are). And this is true even if they believe life begins at conception because their choices of what to exclude and include STILL seem arbitrary. I mean it's hard to make ABSOLUTE statements that we know with absolute certainty are 100% true on how birth control methods work as this stuff is seldom known ABSOLUTELY (the mechanisms of action of everything aren't always 100% known). But definitely it can be credibly argued IUDs are not abortificants as they don't have much of an effect after implantation. The UN argues they aren't FWIW:
http://www.un.org/popin/popis/journals/network/network162/blck162.html
But they don't 100% prevent conception (an egg joining with a sperm), uh ... I don't think birth control pills do either!!! (even less so in the first couple of months of use). So again is there any *rational* reason to exclude one and not the other? We are just supposed to accept a menu of birth control options that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever even within it's own assumptions.
And then there's the fact that the Supreme Court itself has said the ruling could be extended to apply to MORE types of birth control. So Hobby Lobby workers are good if they want birth control pills say, but another company could exclude birth control pills (and are actually being more logically consistent in their beliefs if they are "life begins at conception" it seems to me, even though that doesn't do women wanting birth control no good at all!).
One can always get IUDs out of pocket, but up to 1k in cost, they can approach a monthly mortgage payment for some even when cheaper over the long run. So instead of more and better birth control in the future, even current safe and effective existing methods are marginalized - what a world for a woman to come of age in! And instead of "ok, then how can we find other ways to fund more expensive methods of bc for poor women who want them" - like IUDs and even things like Nuva ring that have more initial cost than pills, we get "women have enough choices already - eat your peas! Peas are what's on the menu darn it! Lima beans aren't available!"
And I could care less about Hillary Clinton, another warmonger.
JC Penney is next:
http://www.moonmontchronicle.com/supreme-court-rules-jcpenney-allowed-to-sacrifice-employees-to-appease-cthulhu.html
LOL
Actually I've heard there are other cases working their way through, some where the business does not condone birth control, period. And the court has kind of made itself the arbiter of which specific religious beliefs a business can exercise and which they cannot. It's going to get really weird.
While Hilary Clinton refuses to commit to running for President, she runs for President giving speeches like this:
“It’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who need contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception,” Clinton said
Just for the record it was that other Clinton that signed The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was a key point in the Hobby Lobby case, into law. Just sayin.
I was speaking to my son the lawyer about this case, and he was talking about how the real "slippery slope" danger resides in the fact that Supreme Court sets a precedent that will trickle down into lower courts.
And here is kind of what he was getting at, published in Mother Jones today. I'm still on the fence about this ruling, but this give me pause.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception
iris lilies
7-3-14, 11:30am
It's effectively true if the birth control method you want is an IUD. I don't regard those birth control methods as interchangeable and I doubt many gynos would either, because they aren't. The whole "women should only choose from the limited menu of birth control we provide them for no scientific reasons whatsoever" is probably the single most offensive thing in the entire debate.....
All birth control methods are not interchangeable, agreed.
Disagree that all things must be provided to all people for all reasons. The glass is 3/4 full in Hobby Lobby's offerings of birth control. You choose to view it as 1/4 empty. Your choice.
Personally, I can't imagine relying on an employer to provide something so integral to my life as birth control. I might bitch and moan about certain services not being provided (free parking, coffee, specific IUD) but in the big picture it's is a minor thing and frankly, if it's that important to have it on my insurance, I'll go work for someone else who WILL provide it.
All birth control methods are not interchangeable, agreed.
Disagree that all things must be provided to all people for all reasons. The glass is 3/4 full in Hobby Lobby's offerings of birth control. You choose to view it as 1/4 empty. Your choice.
Personally, I can't imagine relying on an employer to provide something so integral to my life as birth control. I might bitch and moan about certain services not being provided (free parking, coffee, specific IUD) but in the big picture it's is a minor thing and frankly, if it's that important to have it on my insurance, I'll go work for someone else who WILL provide it.
ahh..yes, the 'I'll simply change jobs' declaration. Which of course is what EVERYONE has the ability to do...which is why a woman would go to work for a corporation that wants to keep those slutty sluts in line in the first place. BUT while your job hopping looking for a minimum wage business that will follow ALL US labor laws, better not need food stamps or welfare checks cause those who tell you to 'simply change jobs' will be the first to piss and moan about you sucking on 'nanny G' or something like that.
And what about Christian Science who don't believe in any health care?
So now in a job interview, is the potential employee supposed to question the employer's religious beliefs? Cause now it's kind of relevant, isn't it.
Not only has this ruling been made, and let's call it what it is, special consideration for a protected class based on mumbo jumbo, actual medical facts have been discarded in favor of 'but your honors, I really really really believe the false information'.
So I'm guessing all you who think this is a good idea are also in favor of doing away with tax exempt status for churches? Am I right? You know, seperation of state and church and all that. This non believer is pretty sick and tired of paying for all your invisible cannibal gods.
ahh..yes, the 'I'll simply change jobs' declaration. Which of course is what EVERYONE has the ability to do...which is why a woman would go to work for a corporation that wants to keep those slutty sluts in line in the first place. BUT while your job hopping looking for a minimum wage business that will follow ALL US labor laws, better not need food stamps or welfare checks cause those who tell you to 'simply change jobs' will be the first to piss and moan about you sucking on 'nanny G' or something like that.
And what about Christian Science who don't believe in any health care?
So now in a job interview, is the potential employee supposed to question the employer's religious beliefs? Cause now it's kind of relevant, isn't it.
Not only has this ruling been made, and let's call it what it is, special consideration for a protected class based on mumbo jumbo, actual medical facts have been discarded in favor of 'but your honors, I really really really believe the false information'.
So I'm guessing all you who think this is a good idea are also in favor of doing away with tax exempt status for churches? Am I right? You know, seperation of state and church and all that. This non believer is pretty sick and tired of paying for all your invisible cannibal gods.
Did you know that the principle of separation of church and state is one of the key reasons churches enjoy exemption from taxes? You are in favor of keeping them separate aren't you?
Along the same vein, tax laws are structured to benefit secular non-profits and charitable institutions as well under the principle of the more you tax something, the less of it you get. Would you also like to negate their favored status?
ApatheticNoMore
7-3-14, 6:12pm
Did you know that the principle of separation of church and state is one of the key reasons churches enjoy exemption from taxes?
it seems to make very little sense, if they are just taxed like anything else, then it's a seperate as anything else, otherwise it seems like favoritism. I think I should not pay any taxes on account of the seperation of me and state. However they do do chartiable work and if it was treated differently than other charitable work perhaps it might violate the seperation of church and state.
Along the same vein, tax laws are structured to benefit secular non-profits and charitable institutions as well under the principle of the more you tax something, the less of it you get.
actually I doubt that's the principle. I think it's tax free to encourqage donation (charities probably have lobbying power as well - and certainly those taking the deduction lobby, though I don't know exactly what role it plays - but I'm not at all prepared to say none). It's a subtle distinction, it's carrot versus stick really. Stated the other way makes it seem that people make all their decisions for tax purposes and it's the primary motivator of human behavior - which is absurd. Though a tax deduction can make certain behavior obviously more rewarding.
ApatheticNoMore
7-3-14, 6:18pm
ahh..yes, the 'I'll simply change jobs' declaration. Which of course is what EVERYONE has the ability to do...which is why a woman would go to work for a corporation that wants to keep those slutty sluts in line in the first place.
yes women who don't have to work or shop at (uh noone has to shop) at those @#$# shouldn't. Why should they associate with such a bunch of jerks? But some may have few choices in employment.
it seems to make very little sense, if they are just taxed like anything else, then it's a seperate as anything else, otherwise it seems like favoritism. I think I should not pay any taxes on account of the seperation of me and state. However they do do chartiable work and if it was treated differently than other charitable work perhaps it might violate the seperation of church and state.
The question comes up from time to time and was last definitively answered by the Supreme Court in 1970 when Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote: "The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other."
actually I doubt that's the principle. I think it's tax free to encourqage donation (charities probably have lobbying power as well - and certainly those taking the deduction lobby, though I don't know exactly what role it plays - but I'm not at all prepared to say none). It's a subtle distinction, it's carrot versus stick really. Stated the other way makes it seem that people make all their decisions for tax purposes and it's the primary motivator of human behavior - which is absurd. Though a tax deduction can make certain behavior obviously more rewarding.
If you're interested in reading the IRS's own history on the subject, you can find it here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/tehistory.pdf
A careful reading will show a long and dedicated effort to promote charitable giving and works through favored tax status.
I was speaking to my son the lawyer about this case, and he was talking about how the real "slippery slope" danger resides in the fact that Supreme Court sets a precedent that will trickle down into lower courts.
And here is kind of what he was getting at, published in Mother Jones today. I'm still on the fence about this ruling, but this give me pause.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception
Very good article. Looks like no time was wasted sliding down this very slippery slope..
ApatheticNoMore
7-3-14, 8:07pm
Very good article. Looks like no time was wasted sliding down this very slippery slope..
Because there was no slope in the first place, that was level ground. Like I said where's the proof IUDs work entirely differently than the pill with no overlap? But IUDs can be inserted within a reasonable time after unprotected sex and work? Yea but that's an atypical use, but I'm sure it is done of course, probably in a small percentage of cases. It seems weird to ban a whole method based on atypical usage. You could probably also combine multiple birth control pills and make your own equivalent of the morning-after pill. Although that would be a HIGHLY atypical use (because morning after pills are easily available and OTC. But "morning after" recipes would be useful if they become less so ... now that is a useful topic for the emergency forum :))
All birth control methods are not interchangeable, agreed.
Disagree that all things must be provided to all people for all reasons. The glass is 3/4 full in Hobby Lobby's offerings of birth control. You choose to view it as 1/4 empty. Your choice.
Personally, I can't imagine relying on an employer to provide something so integral to my life as birth control. I might bitch and moan about certain services not being provided (free parking, coffee, specific IUD) but in the big picture it's is a minor thing and frankly, if it's that important to have it on my insurance, I'll go work for someone else who WILL provide it.
Then that goes back to my original question: do you ask when, exactly? During the interview? Before applying? This would be awkward at best. Is there going to be some sort of corporate database that women can search to see which companies got exemptions?
The notion that women will just "go work elsewhere" suggests they'd be able to find out this info (cause it's not just HL; there's other, unexpected and a potentially growing and changing list).
I think you assume women have lots of choices when they may not. Also, women who are working and trying to control the size if their families (thus cost) to stay off welfare will be the most affected since they are least likely to have extra $ in their budget to deal with this.
Then that goes back to my original question: do you ask when, exactly? During the interview? Before applying? This would be awkward at best.
"Hello, what are the health benefits offered as part of the compensation package for this position?"
Seems not too terrible.
ApatheticNoMore
7-5-14, 1:24am
Then that goes back to my original question: do you ask when, exactly? During the interview? Before applying? This would be awkward at best. Is there going to be some sort of corporate database that women can search to see which companies got exemptions?
The notion that women will just "go work elsewhere" suggests they'd be able to find out this info (cause it's not just HL; there's other, unexpected and a potentially growing and changing list).
I still like my original idea of a website for this or something (like glassdoor.com but maybe specifically for this). It's information anyone working there already has (it's just the basic descriptions of the healthcare plans - that's given when you do open enrollment). But nothing like that exists yet. I think the idea was also if someone found out their healthcare plan was this way they could look for a better job (it depends on what they can afford out of pocket in the meantime etc.). I put the odds of working for religious nutters as fairly low, most mid-size companies are nothing like that, but some mom and pops maybe.
I think you assume women have lots of choices when they may not. Also, women who are working and trying to control the size if their families (thus cost) to stay off welfare will be the most affected since they are least likely to have extra $ in their budget to deal with this.
yea they might not have a lot of employment choices.
I still like my original idea of a website for this or something (like glassdoor.com but maybe specifically for this).
I like my original idea of not having employers involved in providing my health care.
I wouldn't want my company to select my housing, or my food, or my clothes, or the classes I take, or who my ISP is, or the car I drive. I just want them to pay me for my work, and let me make my own choices with my own $$$ and time.
ApatheticNoMore
7-5-14, 2:47am
And yet employers end up paying far more for employees having kids than they'll ever pay for birth control. The hospitalization (never mind if there are any complications). The 2-3 months of family leave. The subsidizing of their childrens health insurance in some cases. And everyone contributes to the insurance bill covering their medical care for childbirth (that's how insurance works - everyone contributes - if costs are high in a company everyone's premiums go up). This is usually accepted by people without children without too much complaint as it is usually considered good for society and they will admit it (yea a kid probably should have dad stay home for a few months etc.. - yea it's probably better if medical complications in childbirth are covered). But all these costs compared to birth control ...
I personally can afford between $500-$1000 out of pocket for my IUD. Is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to imagine that not everyone may be as privileged in that regard as me? Of course yes single payer would probably cover all of this (childbirth, birth control etc.). But we don't have a single payer system at present and so employers are where a large percentage of the population gets their medical insurance.
From Wikipedia - this would produce an interesting coverage plan. And this is not ad hoc beliefs, it's the official stand of a major world faith.
I wonder if pregnancies and children born outside of wedlock would be covered?
Roman Catholicism[edit]
The Catholic Church is opposed to artificial contraception and orgasmic acts outside of the context of marital intercourse.[3] This belief dates back to the first centuries of Christianity.[4] Such acts are considered intrinsically disordered because of the belief that all licit sexual acts must be both unitive (express love), and procreative (open to procreation). The only form of birth control permitted is abstinence. Modern scientific methods of "periodic abstinence" such as natural family planning (NFP) were counted as a form of abstinence by Pope Paul VI in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae.[5] The following is the condemnation of contraception:
Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.
A number of other documents provide more insight into the Church's position on contraception. The commission appointed to study the question in the years leading up to Humanae Vitae issued two unofficial reports, a so-called "majority report" which attempted to express reasons the Catholic Church could change its teaching on contraception, and a "minority report" which explains the reasons for upholding the traditional Catholic view on contraception.[6] In 1997, the Vatican released a document entitled "Vademecum for Confessors" (2:4) which states "[t]he Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception."[7] Furthermore, many Church Fathers condemned the use of contraception.[8][9]
The 1987 document Donum Vitae opposes in-vitro fertilization on grounds that it is harmful to embryos. Later on, the 2008 instruction Dignitas Personae denounces embryonic manipulations and new methods of contraception.
I like my original idea of not having employers involved in providing my health care.
I wouldn't want my company to select my housing, or my food, or my clothes, or the classes I take, or who my ISP is, or the car I drive. I just want them to pay me for my work, and let me make my own choices with my own $$$ and time.
I still like your original idea, too, bae. That was a big factor in my quitting my job and going solo. Yes, my health insurance costs me a lot but it's all mine.
I like my original idea of not having employers involved in providing my health care.
I wouldn't want my company to select my housing, or my food, or my clothes, or the classes I take, or who my ISP is, or the car I drive. I just want them to pay me for my work, and let me make my own choices with my own $$$ and time.
What if your employer decides they need to know your choices so they can decide if they are "complicit" in providing you the means to make choices they may not agree with?
My work is very indirectly tied to securities, so my employer requires me to periodically provide information as to my own investments and trading, my political contributions, etc. As well as any work I may do on my own time.
What if your employer decides they need to know your choices so they can decide if they are "complicit" in providing you the means to make choices they may not agree with?
My work is very indirectly tied to securities, so my employer requires me to periodically provide information as to my own investments and trading, my political contributions, etc. As well as any work I may do on my own time.
From what I understand (and I haven't actively searched for a job in a long time, so I don't know) some employers want to see your Facebook page, which I think is totally invasive and none of their business. If they want to go trolling around and find it themselves, that's one thing, but I do not think that should be a condition of employment. I don't get the blurred lines between private and work lives these days. I do have work people I've "friended" on Facebook, but I don't feel 100% comfortable with that. I'm not posting selfies drunk at night clubs, but I still like the wall between work and personal life, as mundane as my personal life is.
iris lilies
7-5-14, 12:17pm
And yet employers end up paying far more for employees having kids than they'll ever pay for birth control....
yep agreed. Which is why the sincere belief behind denying specific methods of birth on insurance IS an expression of sincere belief, not a decision of commerce. And swimming against the stream.
I personally can afford between $500-$1000 out of pocket for my IUD. Is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to imagine that not everyone may be as privileged in that regard as me?
Planned Parenthood and other clinics charge on a sliding scale of ability to pay, an option for all. They will determine who is "privileged."
If those who are so outraged about this Hobby Lobby deal stopped typing on their computer, here and on every other website, and sent $5 to Planned Parenthood, that would go a long way toward supplying birth control for those who may need help. Typing on a computer is easy--real action, not so much.
Did you know that the principle of separation of church and state is one of the key reasons churches enjoy exemption from taxes? You are in favor of keeping them separate aren't you?
Along the same vein, tax laws are structured to benefit secular non-profits and charitable institutions as well under the principle of the more you tax something, the less of it you get. Would you also like to negate their favored status?
oh bs! i want them to be treated like everyone else! that is a total bs way to explain why they want to make a special exception for a certain group.
what your trying to say is by creating this special treatment for this group it's really fair to us all? and you actually expect thinking people to believe that? what a load of horsesh*t! you might be able to peddle that to 'certain' voters, but not many thinking people buy that! lol
i think churches should apply and go through the process of tax exemption, just like every non profit. each and every one and no blanket religion wide application. when people get exemption from the laws of the land, then yeah, that's special consideration.
i think churches should apply and go through the process of tax exemption, just like every non profit. each a, nd every one and no blanket religion wide application. when people get exemption from the laws of the land, then yeah, that's special consideration.
Would you consider it an exemption to "the laws of the land" for Congress, or any other governmental agency to ignore their instruction to " make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" without an appropriate financial expense?
Would it violate the principle of separation of Church and State if the State charged the Church for its existence? Traditionally, our government and law makers have thought so.
...
Planned Parenthood and other clinics charge on a sliding scale of ability to pay, an option for all. They will determine who is "privileged."
If those who are so outraged about this Hobby Lobby deal stopped typing on their computer, here and on every other website, and sent $5 to Planned Parenthood, that would go a long way toward supplying birth control for those who may need help. Typing on a computer is easy--real action, not so much.
Thanks for bringing up Planned Parenthood; it's one of those organizations that just slogs along--against massive resistance--doing good work. I contribute regularly to them--one of the few human charities I do--so I guess I can carry on whinging. :)
iris lilies
7-5-14, 6:12pm
...-so I guess I can carry on whinging. :)
why yes. yes you can!
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
Medicare paying $38M a year for penis pumps:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/medicare-paid-excessive-172m-for-penis-pumps-over-five-year-span-report/
What a ridiculous world we live in.
I like my original idea of not having employers involved in providing my health care.
I wouldn't want my company to select my housing, or my food, or my clothes, or the classes I take, or who my ISP is, or the car I drive. I just want them to pay me for my work, and let me make my own choices with my own $$$ and time.
Nice sentiment, but currently far from reality for a vast number of people. I'd be for this too, if a better system were in place (examples of which abound in every single other developed country). Until that point, why do some corps get to pick and choose some benefits? Like I said, blood transfusions can't be refused coverage even if a small group of JWs closely hold a majority of a "public" company. So the standards are being applied non-uniformly since the Court is basically saying that if your religious beliefs include denying certain contraception those beliefs have merit, but those beliefs are not sincere if they provide any other guide about health care, when applied to people outside your particular religion.
As for the benefits statements outlining reproductive services when considering positions, will the corps who plan not to cover IUDs have to specifically outline that on their benefit lists? I don't think the benefit plan of the place I'm currently considering gets all that specific. It just says "wellness checks", "outpatient visits", "mental health services" etc. with various in- vs out-of-network rates and copays and such.
Until that point, why do some corps get to pick and choose some benefits?
Because nobody read the Affordable Care Act before they passed it?
ApatheticNoMore
7-6-14, 1:27am
Like I said, blood transfusions can't be refused coverage even if a small group of JWs closely hold a majority of a "public" company.
We may be being unfair to Jehovah's Witnesses. Some have argued JWs don't regard it as their problem whether those who aren't JWs get blood transfusions. If so they wouldn't even be interested in this kind of suit. So maybe they shouldn't be lumped in with this craziness. Though I'm still pretending I'm not home :)
QUOTE=Alan;179193]Would you consider it an exemption to "the laws of the land" for Congress, or any other governmental agency to ignore their instruction to " make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" without an appropriate financial expense?
Would it violate the principle of separation of Church and State if the State charged the Church for its existence? Traditionally, our government and law makers have thought so.[/QUOTE]
that's a load of hogwash alan and you know it. THEY ARE NOT A CHURCH! they are not holding mass in the stencil aisle. they are a corporation doing business and making tons of money in the US. no one is stopping them from exercising their religion. the supremes DID however make law 'respecting an establishment of religion'.
yes churches should be taxed JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. churches own property, and make income and should be taxed like EVERYONE else who owns property and makes income. why do YOU think they should be exempt from the laws the rest of us must follow simply because they 'believe' in fairytales and magic mumbo jumbo? that's a pretty sweet deal. declare the world is flat and not only am i supposed to respect that, but i can't expect you to go on business trips like all other employees cause, you know, you might fall off.
i believe there is a dalmatian in a tea cup floating around the earth. do i get an exemption from tax laws? do i get to deny my employees lunch break because they will only use that time to bet on dog fights?
*i hope everyone is following this so maybe they can get a taste of what's to come unless we vote republicans, all republicans out this fall. if you, a presumable smart moderate (snort) republican can 'explain' to us poor slobs how giving a special exception/consideration to religion from following US laws is somehow 'more' fair to the rest of us and really really separation of church and state, well, this should open their eyes. this is the direction of republican rule. women (slutty sluts) need to be controlled, voting should be reserved for landed white men, but guns for everyone.
vote them out. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
and for you who like to say 'i'm republican but i don't believe in those things' i say bull. if you identify as republican, you endorse each and every one of those things. period. you endorse restricted voting rights, you endorse limiting women's health choices, you endorse entwining religion into public laws and regulations. you think the world is 6ooo years old and gay people are an abomination. you think guns should be allowed EVERYWHERE and that the reason is because you seriously believe you will be called upon to shoot up city hall in the name of cliven bundy. you think minimum wage should be abolished so we can go back to .50 cents an hour (cause, he he he..there will always be someone who will work for less) and you truly truly believe that if we only do that our benevolent corporate overlords will be good and true and take care of us all...just like they do in other countries that don't have our laws and protections.
vote them out. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. including the so called libertarians who registered republican in order to get elected. yeah, here's a special group who actually lie to JOIN this ayn rand clown car cause what their driving couldn't even make it out of the parking lot.:~)
that's a load of hogwash alan and you know it. THEY ARE NOT A CHURCH! they are not holding mass in the stencil aisle. they are a corporation doing business and making tons of money in the US. no one is stopping them from exercising their religion. the supremes DID however make law 'respecting an establishment of religion'.
You're right, they are not a church, they are individuals who were potentially being forced by the government to violate their religious principles, thereby "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The court recognized the importance of not violating individual religious freedom when they limited their decision to "closely held" corporations.
yes churches should be taxed JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. churches own property, and make income and should be taxed like EVERYONE else who owns property and makes income. why do YOU think they should be exempt from the laws the rest of us must follow simply because they 'believe' in fairytales and magic mumbo jumbo?
I responded earlier in this thread on the Supreme Court's previous ruling which answered the question. In case you missed it, I'll copy/paste it for you: "The question comes up from time to time and was last definitively answered by the Supreme Court in 1970 when Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote: "The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.""
i hope everyone is following this so maybe they can get a taste of what's to come unless we vote republicans, all republicans out this fall. if you, a presumable smart moderate (snort) republican can 'explain' to us poor slobs how giving a special exception/consideration to religion from following US laws is somehow 'more' fair to the rest of us and really really separation of church and state, well, this should open their eyes. this is the direction of republican rule. women (slutty sluts) need to be controlled, voting should be reserved for landed white men, but guns for everyone.
vote them out. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
and for you who like to say 'i'm republican but i don't believe in those things' i say bull. if you identify as republican, you endorse each and every one of those things. period. you endorse restricted voting rights, you endorse limiting women's health choices, you endorse entwining religion into public laws and regulations. you think the world is 6ooo years old and gay people are an abomination. you think guns should be allowed EVERYWHERE and that the reason is because you seriously believe you will be called upon to shoot up city hall in the name of cliven bundy. you think minimum wage should be abolished so we can go back to .50 cents an hour (cause, he he he..there will always be someone who will work for less) and you truly truly believe that if we only do that our benevolent corporate overlords will be good and true and take care of us all...just like they do in other countries that don't have our laws and protections.
vote them out. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. including the so called libertarians who registered republican in order to get elected. yeah, here's a special group who actually lie to JOIN this ayn rand clown car cause what their driving couldn't even make it out of the parking lot.:~)
Ha ha, you almost got me on that one. Until I saw the smiley face at the end, I thought you were purposely espousing more stereotyping, straw man arguments and outright silliness than I can ever remember seeing in one place. Yep, you had me going there for a moment. Well done!
why do YOU think they should be exempt from the laws the rest of us must follow simply because they 'believe' in fairytales and magic mumbo jumbo? that's a pretty sweet deal. declare the world is flat and not only am i supposed to respect that, but i can't expect you to go on business trips like all other employees cause, you know, you might fall off.
Well, two fairy tale institutions that spew nothing but mumbo-jumbo also spewed over 3 billion dollars in 2013 to fight poverty and provide social services.
From Forbes:
No. 2 again is the Salvation Army , a church better known for its social services efforts whose U.S. headquarters also is in Alexandria. Its donations rose 11% to $1.9 billion, more than making up for a 6% fall from the previous year.
A list newcomer comes in at No. 3, Task Force for Global Health, which is based in Decatur, Ga. To implement its health activities in 50 countries, including the U.S., the charity brought in $1.7 billion, most of it donated medicines.
Rounding out the billion-dollar-donation club: Feeding America at $1.5 billion and Catholic Charities USA at $1.4 billion..which directs its efforts toward fighting poverty.
Well, two fairy tale institutions that spew nothing but mumbo-jumbo also spewed over 3 billion dollars in 2013 to fight poverty and provide social services.
From Forbes:
and bill gates donates a ton of money every year. do you think we should exclude him from paying taxes? i donate a lot of money, percentage wise. should i be excused from paying taxes. in fact, lots of people and businesses donate time and money. i guess they all should be excused from paying taxes OR following the US laws. or maybe you have another reason OTHER than that they are a religion for them to be excused? do you? cause saying all things being equal, they DESERVE this exemption solely on their beliefs in the supernatural is in fact a violation of separation of church and state.
look, if they want exemption from taxes, and/or US law, they need to apply, like every other non profit. that truly is equal treatment.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.