Frazzled wrote:
Yet you're still responding, trying to cover for the fact you couldn't find a purpose for them.

You got pwoned by a guy who thinks he's a wiener dog.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAAHHAHAH

(i guess its fitting the wiener dog got pwoned by the guy with the quirrel avatar - we'll get you one day tree dweller!)

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
But why don't we just leave these issues to trained medical professionals and their patients, shall we?

In much the same manner should we halt this discussion and leave the matter of legal rulings to the judges?

 easysauce wrote:

so what, non farking use is there for birth control?

im not sure why we have to subsidize peoples non-birthcontrol uses of birthcontrol ...

what other use is there for BC pills besides being used to control birth... are they going to play marbles with them or something? examples please!


I do think single payer is the way to go here though, precisely because its simpler, cheaper, more effective, is proven to work, and gets rid of issues like this where one party doesnt want to participate.

In some cases it is not uncommon for a woman to be on birth control, including an IUD, because of irregular/heavy/painful periods. In this case under double effect the primary intention of the device is to assist the woman with her medical condition, the contraceptive benefit is not the main purpose

 easysauce wrote:
either way... for the love of god, all you champions of obama care, realize that it is a horrible half measure that makes a bad situation worse... put some pressure on the democrats to actually impliment a working single payer system and be done with it... solves so many problems, causes none.

 jasper76 wrote:
If Republicans were dead set against single payer before, have we seen any eveidence whatsoever that they are going to want to move to a single payer system now...because their buy-in will be needed.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yet you're still responding, trying to cover for the fact you couldn't find a purpose for them.

You got pwoned by a guy who thinks he's a wiener dog.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAAHHAHAH

(i guess its fitting the wiener dog got pwoned by the guy with the quirrel avatar - we'll get you one day tree dweller!)

Oh there are plenty of reasons. Sorry to disappoint you. We can all be thankful that the medical community doesn't have to rely on "random crap that Frazzled thinks he knows stuff about" to make important decisions.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yet you're still responding, trying to cover for the fact you couldn't find a purpose for them.

You got pwoned by a guy who thinks he's a wiener dog.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAAHHAHAH

(i guess its fitting the wiener dog got pwoned by the guy with the quirrel avatar - we'll get you one day tree dweller!)

No he didn't. All that is happening here is that you're displaying that you're not willing to do any research, but you expect others to do it for you.

Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide.

including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. Religious employers, such as churches, are
exempt from this contraceptive mandate.

Christian beliefs that life begins at conception and that it would violate their religion to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs or devices that operate after that point.

were also denied a preliminary injunction, but the Tenth Circuit reversed. It held that the Greens’ businesses are “persons ” under RFRA,

In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;[1] therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”[3] The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest.”[3] Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.[4] The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest. The law, in conjunction with President Bill Clinton's Executive Order in 1996, provided more security for sacred sites for Native American religious rites.

Corporation: a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

A Nonprofit corporation is a special type of corporation that has been organized to meet specific tax-exempt purposes. To qualify for Nonprofit status, your corporation must be formed to benefit: (1) the public, (2) a specific group of individuals, or (3) the membership of the Nonprofit.

For Profit Corporation: A for-profit corporation or for-profit company is a corporation that is intended to operate a business which will return a profit to the owners. ...

HHS and the dissent nonetheless argue that RFRA does not cover Conestoga, Hobby Lobby, and Mardel because they cannot“exercise . . . religion.”

Corporation: a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”

HHS has not pointed to any example of a publicly traded corporation asserting RFRA rights, and numerous practical restraints would likely prevent that from occurring. HHS has also provided no evidence that the purported problem of determining the sincerity of an asserted religious belief moved Congress to exclude for-profit corporations from RFRA’s protection.

State corporate law provides a ready means for resolving any conflicts by, for example, dictating how a corporation can establish its governing structure. Courts will turn to that structure and the underlying state law in resolving disputes.

HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion.

“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion

It requires the Hahns and Greens to engage in conduct that seriously violates their sincere religious belief that life begins at conception.

HHS argues that the connection between what the objecting parties must do and the end that they find to be morally wrong is too attenuated because it is the employee who will choose the coverage and contraceptive method she uses.

The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable

The Government could,e.g assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers’ religious objections. Or it could extend the accommodation that HHS has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate. That accommodation does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion and it still serves HHS’s stated interests.

3)This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates,e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.

In its final pages, the principal dissent reveals that its fundamental objection to the claims of the plaintiffs is an objection to RFRA itself. The dissent worries about forcing the federal courts to apply RFRA to a host of claims made by litigants seeking a religious exemption from generally applicable laws, and the dissent expresses a desire to keep the courts out of this business. See post , at32–35. In making this plea, the dissent reiterates a point made forcefully by the Court in Smith.494 U. S., at 888–889 (applying the Sherbert test to all free-exercise claims “would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind”). But Congress, in enacting RFRA, took the position that “the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty andcompeting prior governmental interests.” 42 U. S. C.§2000bb(a)(5) The wisdom of Congress’s judgment on thematter is not our concern. Our responsibility is to enforce RFRA as written, and under the standard that RFRA prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful.

The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns. The judgment of the Tenth Circuit in No. 13–354 is affirmed; the judgment of the Third Circuit in No. 13–356 is reversed, and that case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

 Jihadin wrote:

Spoiler:

Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide.

Bolo One Page One

including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. Religious employers, such as churches, are
exempt from this contraceptive mandate.

Tracking on the four.

Christian beliefs that life begins at conception and that it would violate their religion to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs or devices that operate after that point.

Still tracking on the four

were also denied a preliminary injunction, but the Tenth Circuit reversed. It held that the Greens’ businesses are “persons ” under RFRA,

RFRA

In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;[1] therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”[3] The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest.”[3] Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.[4] The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest. The law, in conjunction with President Bill Clinton's Executive Order in 1996, provided more security for sacred sites for Native American religious rites.

okay

Corporation: a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

Still tracking

HHS’s concession that a nonprofit corporation can be a “person” under RFRA effectively dispatches any argument that the term does not reach for-profit corporations; no conceivable definition of “person” includes natural persons and non-profit corporations, but not for-profit corporations.

So

A Nonprofit corporation is a special type of corporation that has been organized to meet specific tax-exempt purposes. To qualify for Nonprofit status, your corporation must be formed to benefit: (1) the public, (2) a specific group of individuals, or (3) the membership of the Nonprofit.

vs

For Profit Corporation: A for-profit corporation or for-profit company is a corporation that is intended to operate a business which will return a profit to the owners. ...

Keyword is Corporation
So I'm tracking

HHS and the dissent nonetheless argue that RFRA does not cover Conestoga, Hobby Lobby, and Mardel because they cannot“exercise . . . religion.”

but?

Corporation: a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

So they fall under RFRA because

“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”

So still tracking

HHS has not pointed to any example of a publicly traded corporation asserting RFRA rights, and numerous practical restraints would likely prevent that from occurring. HHS has also provided no evidence that the purported problem of determining the sincerity of an asserted religious belief moved Congress to exclude for-profit corporations from RFRA’s protection.

Can say Hobby Lobby is the first because of ACA mandate

State corporate law provides a ready means for resolving any conflicts by, for example, dictating how a corporation can establish its governing structure. Courts will turn to that structure and the underlying state law in resolving disputes.

State added to and not took any away. Still tracking.

HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion.

RFRA protects

“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion

Being

It requires the Hahns and Greens to engage in conduct that seriously violates their sincere religious belief that life begins at conception.

So tracking

HHS argues that the connection between what the objecting parties must do and the end that they find to be morally wrong is too attenuated because it is the employee who will choose the coverage and contraceptive method she uses.

I can see the angle of this

The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable

I can see this angle to

(c)The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
(1)The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA.

I agree. 16 of 20 is provided. So still tracking

The Government could,e.g assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers’ religious objections. Or it could extend the accommodation that HHS has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate. That accommodation does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion and it still serves HHS’s stated interests.

Understandable. There's other avenues of approach to provide the additional four

3)This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates,e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.

CYA

ugh. 90+ freaking pages

In its final pages, the principal dissent reveals that its fundamental objection to the claims of the plaintiffs is an objection to RFRA itself. The dissent worries about forcing the federal courts to apply RFRA to a host of claims made by litigants seeking a religious exemption from generally applicable laws, and the dissent expresses a desire to keep the courts out of this business. See post , at32–35. In making this plea, the dissent reiterates a point made forcefully by the Court in Smith.494 U. S., at 888–889 (applying the Sherbert test to all free-exercise claims “would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind”). But Congress, in enacting RFRA, took the position that “the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty andcompeting prior governmental interests.” 42 U. S. C.§2000bb(a)(5) The wisdom of Congress’s judgment on thematter is not our concern. Our responsibility is to enforce RFRA as written, and under the standard that RFRA prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful.

Hey now.....
you just posted..

The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns. The judgment of the Tenth Circuit in No. 13–354 is affirmed; the judgment of the Third Circuit in No. 13–356 is reversed, and that case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns. The judgment of the Tenth Circuit in No. 13–354 is affirmed; the judgment of the Third Circuit in No. 13–356 is reversed, and that case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Spoiler:

Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide.

Bolo One Page One

including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. Religious employers, such as churches, are
exempt from this contraceptive mandate.

Tracking on the four.

Christian beliefs that life begins at conception and that it would violate their religion to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs or devices that operate after that point.

Still tracking on the four

were also denied a preliminary injunction, but the Tenth Circuit reversed. It held that the Greens’ businesses are “persons ” under RFRA,

RFRA

In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;[1] therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”[3] The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest.”[3] Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.[4] The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest. The law, in conjunction with President Bill Clinton's Executive Order in 1996, provided more security for sacred sites for Native American religious rites.

okay

Corporation: a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

Still tracking

HHS’s concession that a nonprofit corporation can be a “person” under RFRA effectively dispatches any argument that the term does not reach for-profit corporations; no conceivable definition of “person” includes natural persons and non-profit corporations, but not for-profit corporations.

So

A Nonprofit corporation is a special type of corporation that has been organized to meet specific tax-exempt purposes. To qualify for Nonprofit status, your corporation must be formed to benefit: (1) the public, (2) a specific group of individuals, or (3) the membership of the Nonprofit.

vs

For Profit Corporation: A for-profit corporation or for-profit company is a corporation that is intended to operate a business which will return a profit to the owners. ...

Keyword is Corporation
So I'm tracking

HHS and the dissent nonetheless argue that RFRA does not cover Conestoga, Hobby Lobby, and Mardel because they cannot“exercise . . . religion.”

but?

Corporation: a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

So they fall under RFRA because

“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”

So still tracking

HHS has not pointed to any example of a publicly traded corporation asserting RFRA rights, and numerous practical restraints would likely prevent that from occurring. HHS has also provided no evidence that the purported problem of determining the sincerity of an asserted religious belief moved Congress to exclude for-profit corporations from RFRA’s protection.

Can say Hobby Lobby is the first because of ACA mandate

State corporate law provides a ready means for resolving any conflicts by, for example, dictating how a corporation can establish its governing structure. Courts will turn to that structure and the underlying state law in resolving disputes.

State added to and not took any away. Still tracking.

HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion.

RFRA protects

“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion

Being

It requires the Hahns and Greens to engage in conduct that seriously violates their sincere religious belief that life begins at conception.

So tracking

HHS argues that the connection between what the objecting parties must do and the end that they find to be morally wrong is too attenuated because it is the employee who will choose the coverage and contraceptive method she uses.

I can see the angle of this

The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable

I can see this angle to

(c)The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
(1)The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA.

I agree. 16 of 20 is provided. So still tracking

The Government could,e.g assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers’ religious objections. Or it could extend the accommodation that HHS has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate. That accommodation does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion and it still serves HHS’s stated interests.

Understandable. There's other avenues of approach to provide the additional four

3)This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates,e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.

CYA

ugh. 90+ freaking pages

In its final pages, the principal dissent reveals that its fundamental objection to the claims of the plaintiffs is an objection to RFRA itself. The dissent worries about forcing the federal courts to apply RFRA to a host of claims made by litigants seeking a religious exemption from generally applicable laws, and the dissent expresses a desire to keep the courts out of this business. See post , at32–35. In making this plea, the dissent reiterates a point made forcefully by the Court in Smith.494 U. S., at 888–889 (applying the Sherbert test to all free-exercise claims “would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind”). But Congress, in enacting RFRA, took the position that “the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty andcompeting prior governmental interests.” 42 U. S. C.§2000bb(a)(5) The wisdom of Congress’s judgment on thematter is not our concern. Our responsibility is to enforce RFRA as written, and under the standard that RFRA prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful.

Hey now.....
you just posted..

The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns. The judgment of the Tenth Circuit in No. 13–354 is affirmed; the judgment of the Third Circuit in No. 13–356 is reversed, and that case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

Protip: Learn how SCOTUS opinions and rulings work.

This is the actual ruling:

The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns. The judgment of the Tenth Circuit in No. 13–354 is affirmed; the judgment of the Third Circuit in No. 13–356 is reversed, and that case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

The contraceptive mandate (aka: every single drug and device you say they have to cover) violates RFRA. So it doesn't affect just the four, it affects all of them.

All the other stuff you quoted is not the ruling. It's their interpretation of the facts of the case, their opinion of those facts, their opinion on the law at question, what other cases they took into consideration, and how they justify the ruling.

The actual ruling, the legal part that is the most important part of the entire paper, is that tiny nugget:

The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA.

Which doesn't say anything about any kind of drugs or devices. It just says that the mandate at large (which includes all of them) violates the law.

Fourteen prominent faith leaders — including some of President Obama’s closest advisers — want the White House to create a religious exemption from his planned executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against gays and lesbians in hiring.

A letter to the White House, sent Tuesday and made public Wednesday, includes the signatures of Michael Wear, faith director for Obama’s 2012 campaign; Stephen Schneck, a leader of Catholic outreach in 2012; and Florida megapastor Joel Hunter, whom Obama has described as a close spiritual counselor.

The letter reminds Obama of his own earlier faith-based opposition to same-sex marriage, as well as the government’s massive partnerships with faith-based social service groups that work on issues including housing, disaster relief and hunger.

“While the nation has undergone incredible social and legal change over the last decade, we still live in a nation with different beliefs about sexuality. We must find a way to respect diversity of opinion,” said the letter.

“An executive order that does not include a religious exemption will significantly and substantively hamper the work of some religious organizations that are best equipped to serve in common purpose with the federal government.,” it said. “When the capacity of religious organizations is limited, the common good suffers.”

Obama announced last month that he would sign an executive order barring discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. He did this after failed efforts to get through Congress the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would make it illegal under federal law to discriminate in the workplace — not just for contractors.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay equality advocacy group, nearly 90 percent of the Fortune 500 already ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. And while many see full gay legal equality as a foregone conclusion, this week’s decision at the Supreme Court — saying corporations may claim religious rights in denying workers contraception coverage — shows that legal tensions between religious liberty and rights around sexuality and reproduction are far from resolved.

The 14 signers of the letter include leaders of some of the country’s largest faith-based charities, notably Catholic Charities USA and World Relief, the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals.

The signers said they supported the executive order — “we have great appreciation for your commitment to human dignity and justice, and we share those values with you” — but said an exemption is essential.

“Americans have always disagreed on important issues, but our ability to live with our diversity is part of what makes this country great, and it continues to be essential even in this 21st-century,” the letter said. “Without a robust religious exemption . . . this expansion of hiring rights will come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity and religious freedom.”

None of the groups mentioned in the letter have explicitly said they would pull out of their partnerships with the White House if they do not get an exemption.

The White House declined to comment, but Schneck said faith groups remain in conversation with the administration and are “hopeful.”

Schneck, who runs the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies at Catholic University, said he did not see any contradiction between supporting gay equality and the exemption.

“I think these things fit together pretty well,” he said. “Of all federal contracts, these [faith-based ones] are such a miniscule portion. The recognition of the divisive nature of these kinds of efforts [such as the executive order], it just makes perfect sense for the White House to give the faith-based groups time to work this out. It’s not that long ago when Obama himself was where these faith-based groups are now.”

Views are deeply divided. World Vision, a massive Christian relief nonprofit that received $179 million in 2013 from the government, announced a few months ago that it would allow employees to be in same-sex marriages and then immediately reversed itself after an outcry by donors.

 Frazzled wrote:
Sorry when is an IUD used for anything besides birth control.

Again, when did birth control become health care?

lets put it another way. Should they be forced to fund abortions as health care?

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why on earth do you think that? Why should someone else be forced to subsidize you ing?

Thats not medical care, thats just welfare.

Because it's used for plenty of other reasons than "fething".

But you already know that and just choose to ignore it.

so what, non farking use is there for birth control?

im not sure why we have to subsidize peoples non-birthcontrol uses of birthcontrol ...

what other use is there for BC pills besides being used to control birth... are they going to play marbles with them or something? examples please!

 Frazzled wrote:
Yet you're still responding, trying to cover for the fact you couldn't find a purpose for them.

some childish babbling that I can't be bothered to quote

 whembly wrote:
No way Jose... no Republican will be able to overcome Hillary Clinton. She's running bro and she ain't signing off any PPACA repeal.

 Frazzled wrote:
When did birth control become health care?

 cincydooley wrote:
Contraception.

Of which there are many forms.

Including not fething people you don't want to have a kid with.

 Polonius wrote:
Seems to me that paying for an IUD is a whole lot cheaper than paying for a pregnancy, not to mention raising a kid.

Stupid policy question: why do we not simply offer on demand contraception in this country? It's way cheaper than the alternatives.

 Frazzled wrote:
yes I expect others to support their arguments. Its kind of a thing.

streamdragon wrote:It's cool guys, this totally doesn't set a precedent for the religious right to just bitch until things go the way they want them to.

streamdragon wrote:How would you go about doing this? I mean, most democrats were all in favor of a single payer system. The Romneycare solution was the compromise. If Republicans were dead set against single payer before, have we seen any eveidence whatsoever that they are going to want to move to a single payer system now...because their buy-in will be needed.

 Seaward wrote:
Who was it a compromise with? No Republicans voted for it.

 sebster wrote:
ACA isn't government provided universal healthcare like progressives want, instead it was a market based solution like the right wing had been claiming it wanted for so long.

Sure, when actually proposed Republicans pretended the idea was horrible and tried to get as many people terrified of the idea, and in the end not one voted for the thing, but as a piece of policy it is what it is.

 Seaward wrote:

streamdragon wrote:It's cool guys, this totally doesn't set a precedent for the religious right to just bitch until things go the way they want them to.

Those guys are on the religious left, actually. Unless you think Obama had Republicans handling his campaign.

streamdragon wrote:How would you go about doing this? I mean, most democrats were all in favor of a single payer system. The Romneycare solution was the compromise. If Republicans were dead set against single payer before, have we seen any eveidence whatsoever that they are going to want to move to a single payer system now...because their buy-in will be needed.

Who was it a compromise with? No Republicans voted for it.

The 14 signers of the letter include leaders of some of the country’s largest faith-based charities, notably Catholic Charities USA and World Relief, the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals.

There you go, a purpose for them. Can you stop acting like a child now?

 Seaward wrote:

Who was it a compromise with? No Republicans voted for it.

 sebster wrote:


The finding was completely and utterly ignored by people who pretend to be morally horrified about abortion.

.

 skyth wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Who was it a compromise with? No Republicans voted for it.

This reminds me of an old saying...If you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, people start to believe it's the truth. Romneycare originated from a Republican think tank and was originally implemented by a Republican governor. It represents the conservative idea of fixing health care via the market (The exchange IS a market believe it or not). Since it is not universal health care, it is very much a compromise.

It's funny, you hear about all the people that were unhappy with the ACA, but they neglect to mention that a large portion were unhappy because it WAS a compromise and not universal health care.

 Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of telling lies...
1. Romney is anything but conservative.

2. No Republican gave input into the actual ACA. Remember "elections have consequences."

3. No Republican voted for it.

 cincydooley wrote:

 sebster wrote:


The finding was completely and utterly ignored by people who pretend to be morally horrified about abortion.

.

I think this is incredibly short sighted.

I live in a fairly Catholic area of the country, and I can assure you there's no pretending about the moral objections to abortion here. It goes so far that when our doctor asked us if we wanted to do the pre-birth screenings for various things and we turned it down because we wouldn't have aborted anyway, he commented, "Yeah, we have very few people do them here for the same reason."

For some of us, killing fetus' is really pretty reprehensible.

That's not to say that I'd ever legislate against someone else doing it (I wouldn't) but to claim there are lots of people "pretending" is a bit disingenuous, IMO.

But in that same vein, I wouldn't ever force anyone to provide it. Which is the instance here, and which is why I don't think the decision is as reprehensible as some other folk seem to.