Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jasper76 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
I think the argument is that the the less burdensome way for government to provide the compelling interest of subsidised contraception would be for government to directly subsidise it themselves. Which to be honest is an argument I've got a lot of time for - if government decides that subsidised contraception meets its overall population health goals (as it should) then it should be government stumping up the cash for that program.

Why should citizens be forced to use their money to pay for the bad deeds of bad actors breaking laws based on something as esoteric and mutable as religious convictions? Where does it stop?

and we're in a gun debate now

I thought they where banning 5 birthcontrols not all. Ones that are deemed as murder or how people belittle it abortion

 Jihadin wrote:
Snippit from Fox News

In reality, Hobby Lobby already provided health care for its employees. Additionally, the company’s insurance covers 16 of the 20 contraceptives required under the HHS mandate.

So found

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/30/reminder-hobby-lobby-provides-coverage-for-16-types-of-contraception-n1857354

The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.

Am I missing something?

Only that those four drugs do not cause abortions, which means their objections are based on being too stupid to know now drive work and should have never made it to the SCOTUS to begin with.

OgreChubbs wrote:
I thought they where banning 5 birthcontrols not all. Ones that are deemed as murder or how people belittle it abortion

4 actually, and HL just don't want to pay for them. "They" can still get them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Snippit from Fox News

In reality, Hobby Lobby already provided health care for its employees. Additionally, the company’s insurance covers 16 of the 20 contraceptives required under the HHS mandate.

So found

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/30/reminder-hobby-lobby-provides-coverage-for-16-types-of-contraception-n1857354

The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.

Am I missing something?

Only that those four drugs do not cause abortions, which means their objections are based on being too stupid to know now drive work and should have never made it to the SCOTUS to begin with.

Its not about abortion, but didn't know you were a medical doctor. They interfere with fertilized eggs, which is viewed as life. I do too but since I can't stand you people in the first place (insert mandatory Dogs Rule All Other Life Drools here) and constantly wonder when the panthers will come to thin out the herd, I don't have a problem with it.

It is about abortion.

And it interferes by preventing the release of an egg to get fertilized in the first place. So nothing gets fertilized in the first place. "Egg already released" is the time where all of them say they don't work in the first place. Some people "think" it prevents implantation, but the science isn't there.

So they can cause abortions in the same way type tylenol or antibiotics can cause abortions. Or lifting a heavy box at hobby lobby when you don't realize you are pregnant. hobby lobby directly causes more abortions than any of their drugs.

. hobby lobby directly causes more abortions than any of their drugs.

Interesting. I wonder if that meets the legal definition for libel.

If it does you better erase your post about Plan B causing abortions.

General labor and stocking shelves will cause more abortions than Plan B. That's not libel, that's knowing how medicines work and how your body works.

 d-usa wrote:
If it does you better erase your post about Plan B causing abortions.

General labor and stocking shelves will cause more abortions than Plan B. That's not libel, that's knowing how medicines work and how your body works.

Yeah... that's a load of crap.

Ensuring a fertilized egg doesn't attach to the uterus is just the same thing. Sure, the egg may not in the general course of things, but taking efforts to keep it from happening is still killing the egg after its been fertilized.

And if you're going to argue semantics, look up the definition of abortion.

the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy

Stocking shelves, which may lead to one miscarriage a decade if we're being serious here, is not a deliberate action to terminate pregnancy.

And neither drug works by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. They work by preventing ovulation and/or fertilization.

They are not abortion inducing drugs.

If not releasing half a set of DNA is abortion according to HL and you guys then making people work hard enough to have a miscarriage definitely fits that definition.

And you would be surprised just how damn common it is.

Don't talk to a medical person about factually inaccurate opinions about how medications work and how the body works. It will only expose your ignorance of the subject.

 d-usa wrote:
And neither drug works by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. They work by preventing ovulation and/or fertilization.

They are not abortion inducing drugs.

If not releasing half a set of DNA is abortion according to HL and you guys then making people work hard enough to have a miscarriage definitely fits that definition.

And you would be surprised just how damn common it is.

Don't talk to a medical person about factually inaccurate opinions about how medications work and how the body works. It will only expose your ignorance of the subject.

Please list your medical license. You're arguing a strawmen and getting huffy about it, like someone gives a gak.

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Snippit from Fox News

In reality, Hobby Lobby already provided health care for its employees. Additionally, the company’s insurance covers 16 of the 20 contraceptives required under the HHS mandate.

So found

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/30/reminder-hobby-lobby-provides-coverage-for-16-types-of-contraception-n1857354

The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.

Am I missing something?

Only that those four drugs do not cause abortions, which means their objections are based on being too stupid to know now drive work and should have never made it to the SCOTUS to begin with.

Funny... you might wanna take that up with the HHS, which basically conceded that these were abortifacients in their brief. HHS' brief 13-356, p. 43 n.9.

But you're right, they're medications that prevent or delay ovulation and doesn't work after fertilization. However, these drugs ARE known to cause pretty knarly complications if fertilization does occur.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
...

My main argumet against the RFRA is in respect to the constitution: "Congress shall make no law (a) respecting the establishment of religion, or (b) prohibiting the free exercise thereof" speaks for itself. The RFRA violates the plain language and simple meaning of (a).

Again, not put too fine a point on it, but you seem to have no real understanding of what RFRA does. RFRA imposes a specific test standard (Strict Scrutiny), it doesn't provide an absolute shield against Federal Law.

Moreover, RFRA has been disproportionately invoked by non-Christian minorities: "Jewish, Muslim, and Native American religions, which make up only three percent of religious membership in the U.S., make up 18 percent of the cases involving the free exercise of religion."

Well, here's tha applicable part of the RFRA statute:

.U.S. Code › Title 42 › Chapter 21B › § 2000bb–1..42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 - Free exercise of religion protected
Current through Pub. L. 113-108. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US CodeNotesUpdatesAuthorities (CFR)prev | next
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

Shall we count the ways this violates the 1st Amendment? It should be an easy task for anyone to do.

On top of that, as written, I can't find anything that states that this law applies to corporations...we only get there by accepting the absurd and perverse notion that corporations are persons who are capable of excercising a religion to begin with.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And neither drug works by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. They work by preventing ovulation and/or fertilization.

They are not abortion inducing drugs.

If not releasing half a set of DNA is abortion according to HL and you guys then making people work hard enough to have a miscarriage definitely fits that definition.

And you would be surprised just how damn common it is.

Don't talk to a medical person about factually inaccurate opinions about how medications work and how the body works. It will only expose your ignorance of the subject.

Please list your medical license. You're arguing a strawmen and getting huffy about it, like someone gives a gak.

If you talk out of your rear, which you do quite a bit, I will call you out on it when it is clear that it is made-up crap. According to your own standards it is all made up crap because you never list any of your credentials.

If you know who I am feel free to look up my credentials, they are on the state website.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Snippit from Fox News

In reality, Hobby Lobby already provided health care for its employees. Additionally, the company’s insurance covers 16 of the 20 contraceptives required under the HHS mandate.

So found

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/30/reminder-hobby-lobby-provides-coverage-for-16-types-of-contraception-n1857354

The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.

Am I missing something?

Only that those four drugs do not cause abortions, which means their objections are based on being too stupid to know now drive work and should have never made it to the SCOTUS to begin with.

Funny... you might wanna take that up with the HHS, which basically conceded that these were abortifacients in their brief. HHS' brief 13-356, p. 43 n.9.

But you're right, they're medications that prevent or delay ovulation and doesn't work after fertilization. However, these drugs ARE known to cause pretty knarly complications if fertilization does occur.

At much higher doses than those prescribed.

So all drugs are against their religions because they all are drugs for suicide, at much higher doses than those prescribed.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also noteworthy that this case allows companies to ban all birth control drugs, not just the four mentioned.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
...

My main argumet against the RFRA is in respect to the constitution: "Congress shall make no law (a) respecting the establishment of religion, or (b) prohibiting the free exercise thereof" speaks for itself. The RFRA violates the plain language and simple meaning of (a).

Again, not put too fine a point on it, but you seem to have no real understanding of what RFRA does. RFRA imposes a specific test standard (Strict Scrutiny), it doesn't provide an absolute shield against Federal Law.

Moreover, RFRA has been disproportionately invoked by non-Christian minorities: "Jewish, Muslim, and Native American religions, which make up only three percent of religious membership in the U.S., make up 18 percent of the cases involving the free exercise of religion."

Well, here's tha applicable part of the RFRA statute:

Spoiler:

.U.S. Code › Title 42 › Chapter 21B › § 2000bb–1..42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 - Free exercise of religion protected
Current through Pub. L. 113-108. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US CodeNotesUpdatesAuthorities (CFR)prev | next
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

Shall we count the ways this violates the 1st Amendment? It should be an easy task for anyone to do.

On top of that, as written, I can't find anything that states that this law applies to corporations...we only get there by accepting the absurd and perverse notion that corporations are persons who are capable of excercising a religion to begin with.

So do it. It'll be interesting to see where you think preventing the government from burdening religious observance constitutes "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

OK, here goes:


U.S. Code › Title 42 › Chapter 21B › § 2000bb–1..42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 - Free exercise of religion protected
Current through Pub. L. 113-108.
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. violation of Establishment Clause
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. violation of Establishment Clause
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution. [/b]

So 2/3 of the statute is in clear violation of the Establishment Clause:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Now if it said "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except if they really, really want to" or somehting, I'd concede the point to you.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
The objection you are raising seems to be that the extremely limited relationship that Hobby Lobby enjoys with these pharma companies through its investment funds are the moral equivalent of distributing the forbidden products.

Hobby Lobby is not distributing any products under the health care plan.

Please note that Hobby Lobby does not endorse this notion: they claim moral responsibility only for those things over which they have direct control, such as the elements of their health plans.

The fact that they refuse to take responsibility for something does not mean that they are not responsible for it. And if the elements of their health plans are under their direct control then so are the elements of their investment plans.

Instead a game of cheap "gotcha" seems to be in play, where understanding the worldview of these people is a distant second to making the cheap point of "these people are bad/hypocrites/etc, and they should be mocked".

I don't give a about the fine details of their "worldview". They're wrong, and they need to STFU.

Did you mean to strike a fascist pose, or was it a happy accident?

Not a joke: you've not only discarded RFRA here, but the fundamentals of the First Amendment and its guarantees of plurality. "They're wrong, and they need to STFU" is the very essence of tyranny.

All that aside, it is rather nice to have my point that what is going on is "a game of cheap "gotcha" seems to be in play, where understanding the worldview of these people is a distant second to making the cheap point of "these people are bad/hypocrites/etc, and they should be mocked" was so cleanly and completely illustrated.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And neither drug works by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. They work by preventing ovulation and/or fertilization.

They are not abortion inducing drugs.

If not releasing half a set of DNA is abortion according to HL and you guys then making people work hard enough to have a miscarriage definitely fits that definition.

And you would be surprised just how damn common it is.

Don't talk to a medical person about factually inaccurate opinions about how medications work and how the body works. It will only expose your ignorance of the subject.

Please list your medical license. You're arguing a strawmen and getting huffy about it, like someone gives a gak.

If you talk out of your rear, which you do quite a bit, I will call you out on it when it is clear that it is made-up crap. According to your own standards it is all made up crap because you never list any of your credentials.

If you know who I am feel free to look up my credentials, they are on the state website.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Snippit from Fox News

In reality, Hobby Lobby already provided health care for its employees. Additionally, the company’s insurance covers 16 of the 20 contraceptives required under the HHS mandate.

So found

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/30/reminder-hobby-lobby-provides-coverage-for-16-types-of-contraception-n1857354

The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.

Am I missing something?

Only that those four drugs do not cause abortions, which means their objections are based on being too stupid to know now drive work and should have never made it to the SCOTUS to begin with.

Funny... you might wanna take that up with the HHS, which basically conceded that these were abortifacients in their brief. HHS' brief 13-356, p. 43 n.9.

But you're right, they're medications that prevent or delay ovulation and doesn't work after fertilization. However, these drugs ARE known to cause pretty knarly complications if fertilization does occur.

At much higher doses than those prescribed.

So all drugs are against their religions because they all are drugs for suicide, at much higher doses than those prescribed.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also noteworthy that this case allows companies to ban all birth control drugs, not just the four mentioned.

So we've established you're not a doctor, but insist on yelling at everyone else, none of whom I can find are making the claim this is about abortion. A for effort.

 d-usa wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also noteworthy that this case allows companies to ban all birth control drugs, not just the four mentioned.

Okay... I'll bite again.

So what?

Are you seriously taking the position that women are incapable of buying their own BC?

Or are you really arguing the slippery slope arguments that "Now that they can do this... what else can they get away with?".

Let's try something else here...

My right to bear arms is clearly defined in the Constitution under the Second Amendment. This is undisputed.

Since this is a right, should an employer be forced to pay for my ammunition? Because... damn... the cost of ammunition has skyrocketed over the past couple of years making it harder for me to purchase (Thanks Obama!).

So... under prevailing logic that the HHS agency used to justify this mandate... this would seem like an applicable request or a “right” to assume. Yes? If not, how is it any different?

Maybe it's my conservative persona peeking through... but I believe in personal responsibility. Therefore, I believe that I am fully capable of buying my own ammunition, with my own money directly out of my own bank account.. I would never think of demanding an employer to help me stock my own arsenal to exercise a very explicit 2nd amendment right. Why then does those who reject this ruling believe that their employer should be forced to pay for birth control, even if it violates their owner's personal beliefs?

Don't get me wrong, access to birth control is an important issue. The good news is, nothing changed after this decision. You can still purchase birth control. You just may have to pay the cost for it youself. No rights were trampled upon.

 jasper76 wrote:
Shall we count the ways this violates the 1st Amendment? It should be an easy task for anyone to do.

Go on then.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also noteworthy that this case allows companies to ban all birth control drugs, not just the four mentioned.

Okay... I'll bite again.

So what?

Are you seriously taking the position that women are incapable of buying their own BC?

Birth control gets prescribed for things other than simply birth control.

Just like sometimes Viagra is prescribed to women with heart issues.

 whembly wrote:
Are you seriously taking the position that women are incapable of buying their own BC? ...Why then does those who reject this ruling believe that their employer should be forced to pay for birth control, even if it violates their owner's personal beliefs?

First off, you are aware that this nation has untold masses of poverty-stricken women, right?

Second, a corporation is not a person with personal beliefs.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Shall we count the ways this violates the 1st Amendment? It should be an easy task for anyone to do.

Go on then.

Already done.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And neither drug works by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. They work by preventing ovulation and/or fertilization.

They are not abortion inducing drugs.

If not releasing half a set of DNA is abortion according to HL and you guys then making people work hard enough to have a miscarriage definitely fits that definition.

And you would be surprised just how damn common it is.

Don't talk to a medical person about factually inaccurate opinions about how medications work and how the body works. It will only expose your ignorance of the subject.

Please list your medical license. You're arguing a strawmen and getting huffy about it, like someone gives a gak.

If you talk out of your rear, which you do quite a bit, I will call you out on it when it is clear that it is made-up crap. According to your own standards it is all made up crap because you never list any of your credentials.

If you know who I am feel free to look up my credentials, they are on the state website.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Snippit from Fox News

In reality, Hobby Lobby already provided health care for its employees. Additionally, the company’s insurance covers 16 of the 20 contraceptives required under the HHS mandate.

So found

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/30/reminder-hobby-lobby-provides-coverage-for-16-types-of-contraception-n1857354

The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.

Am I missing something?

Only that those four drugs do not cause abortions, which means their objections are based on being too stupid to know now drive work and should have never made it to the SCOTUS to begin with.

Funny... you might wanna take that up with the HHS, which basically conceded that these were abortifacients in their brief. HHS' brief 13-356, p. 43 n.9.

But you're right, they're medications that prevent or delay ovulation and doesn't work after fertilization. However, these drugs ARE known to cause pretty knarly complications if fertilization does occur.

At much higher doses than those prescribed.

So all drugs are against their religions because they all are drugs for suicide, at much higher doses than those prescribed.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also noteworthy that this case allows companies to ban all birth control drugs, not just the four mentioned.

So we've established you're not a doctor, but insist on yelling at everyone else, none of whom I can find are making the claim this is about abortion. A for effort.

If you claim that this case was not about abortion, then the SCOTUS is either completely wrong by talking about abortion, the plaintiffs are wrong by raising an objection to abortion as the reason for bringing the case, and everybody that has talked in this thread about these drugs causing abortions is also wrong for talking about it.

Or you are just purposefully trolling at this point because you know that an objection to abortion is the cornerstone of this case.

I have also never claimed to be a doctor, so nice attempt at trying to distract and discredit. I do however work in the medical field and I am licensed to do so. Which necessitates an in depth knowledge of physiology and pharmacology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also noteworthy that this case allows companies to ban all birth control drugs, not just the four mentioned.

Okay... I'll bite again.

So what?

Are you seriously taking the position that women are incapable of buying their own BC?

Birth control gets prescribed for things other than simply birth control.

Just like sometimes Viagra is prescribed to women with heart issues.

And it doesn't matter that they can. It matters that the law says the insurance has to cover it.

You can buy your own cancer drugs as well, so that argument is just stupid.

 jasper76 wrote:
OK, here goes:


U.S. Code › Title 42 › Chapter 21B › § 2000bb–1..42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 - Free exercise of religion protected
Current through Pub. L. 113-108.
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. violation of Establishment Clause
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. violation of Establishment Clause
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution. [/b]

So 2/3 of the statute is in clear violation of the Establishment Clause:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Now if it said "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except if they really, really want to" or somehting, I'd concede the point to you.

Wait, so.. your point is that any action taken to ensure the free exercise clause is followed is a violation of the establishment clause? Are you joking?

Your reading of the First Amendment makes it self-negating.

Put another way, by your reading of the First Amendment, the decision of HHS to exempt "religious employers", (defined "narrowly to include only nonprofit entities that are churches; integrated auxiliaries of churches, conventions, or associations of churches; or the exclusively religious activities of religious orders.") from the contraception mandate is itself a violation of the First Amendment, yes?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also noteworthy that this case allows companies to ban all birth control drugs, not just the four mentioned.

Okay... I'll bite again.

So what?

Are you seriously taking the position that women are incapable of buying their own BC?

Birth control gets prescribed for things other than simply birth control.

Absolutely. (I know a thing or two about drug formulary)

Did you know most institutions who don't pay for BC to prevent pregnancies, WILL pay for it if used off-label? In fact, my ex is a school teacher at a Catholic School. Obviously, she couldn't get BC if it was prescribed for birth control... but, if she needed it for other treatments, the Diocese will cover it with a waiver signed by her doctor.

So... accomodation do exists.

Just like sometimes Viagra is prescribed to women with heart issues.

Sure... of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Are you seriously taking the position that women are incapable of buying their own BC? ...Why then does those who reject this ruling believe that their employer should be forced to pay for birth control, even if it violates their owner's personal beliefs?

First off, you are aware that this nation has untold masses of poverty-stricken women, right?

Poverty-stricken women who are working for a company that offers healthcare packages? My head is starting to hurt...

Second, a corporation is not a person with personal beliefs.

You keep saying that... but, the courts disagrees with you.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Shall we count the ways this violates the 1st Amendment? It should be an easy task for anyone to do.

Go on then.

Already done.

Nope... so far you're failing.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
OK, here goes:


U.S. Code › Title 42 › Chapter 21B › § 2000bb–1..42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 - Free exercise of religion protected
Current through Pub. L. 113-108.
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. violation of Establishment Clause
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. violation of Establishment Clause
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution. [/b]

So 2/3 of the statute is in clear violation of the Establishment Clause:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Now if it said "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except if they really, really want to" or somehting, I'd concede the point to you.

Wait, so.. your point is that any action taken to ensure the free exercise clause is followed is a violation of the establishment clause? Are you joking?

Your reading of the First Amendment makes it self-negating.

Put another way, by your reading of the First Amendment, the decision of HHS to exempt "religious employers", (defined "narrowly to include only nonprofit entities that are churches; integrated auxiliaries of churches, conventions, or associations of churches; or the exclusively religious activities of religious orders.") from the contraception mandate is itself a violation of the First Amendment, yes?

Nope, actually, I believe this law is unconstitutional because it contains explicit provisions to "substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion".

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

It seems to me, and correct me if 'm wrong, that your whole argument hinges on the fact that corporations are "persons" entitled to the same rights enumerated for actual persons. We won't see eye to eye on this issue, as IMO it is absurd and even pernicious on its face.

 sebster wrote:
Thing is, Hobby Lobby probably didn't even know that some of the companies they invested in made abortion and contraception materials... because investing involves putting money in a lot of companies, and you can't be expected to know absolutely every facet of each of the companies you invest in. Anyone who's ever looked in to ethical investments knows it is a lot harder than you'd think. It's basically just a reality of the modern world - any action you take will have all sorts of unknown knock on effects that you'll never be aware of.

As someone researching his pension options because of an employer lead change this is very true

 whembly wrote:
First off, you are aware that this nation has untold masses of poverty-stricken women, right?
Poverty-stricken women who are working for a company that offers healthcare packages? My head is starting to hurt...

Yup...can't figure it out? Think harder about the situations a woman might be in (multiple children, for example) by which even though she may have a low paying job, such as a Hobby Lobby clerk, she is still in poverty.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
OK, here goes:

Spoiler:

U.S. Code › Title 42 › Chapter 21B › § 2000bb–1..42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 - Free exercise of religion protected
Current through Pub. L. 113-108.
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. violation of Establishment Clause
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. violation of Establishment Clause
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution. [/b]

So 2/3 of the statute is in clear violation of the Establishment Clause:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Now if it said "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except if they really, really want to" or somehting, I'd concede the point to you.

Wait, so.. your point is that any action taken to ensure the free exercise clause is followed is a violation of the establishment clause? Are you joking?

Your reading of the First Amendment makes it self-negating.

Put another way, by your reading of the First Amendment, the decision of HHS to exempt "religious employers", (defined "narrowly to include only nonprofit entities that are churches; integrated auxiliaries of churches, conventions, or associations of churches; or the exclusively religious activities of religious orders.") from the contraception mandate is itself a violation of the First Amendment, yes?

Nope, actually, I believe this law is unconstitutional because it contains explicit provisions to "substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion".

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Well, then congratulations! You have an understanding of the First Amendment completely divergent from either the "liberals" or "conservatives" on the Supreme Court, indeed, divergent from basically any element of the legal establishment I have encountered as an attorney.

Given that the law in question is over 15 years old and has survived multiple legal challenges... well, we live in a free country, and just as the owners of Hobby Lobby are entitled to their idiosyncratic beliefs, so are you.

Lovely how that works out, isn't it?

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Well, then congratulations! You have an understanding of the First Amendment completely divergent from either the "liberals" or "conservatives" on the Supreme Court, indeed, divergent from basically any element of the legal establishment I have encountered as an attorney.

Given that the law in question is over 15 years old and has survived multiple legal challenges... well, we live in a free country, and just as the owners of Hobby Lobby are entitled to their idiosyncratic beliefs, so are you.

Lovely how that works out, isn't it?

Smug much?

Anyway, can you please tell me how creating a law explicitly enabling the goverment to impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion does not violate the Establishment Clause? I've tried to answer every question you've put to me, so please answer me this.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Well, then congratulations! You have an understanding of the First Amendment completely divergent from either the "liberals" or "conservatives" on the Supreme Court, indeed, divergent from basically any element of the legal establishment I have encountered as an attorney.

Given that the law in question is over 15 years old and has survived multiple legal challenges... well, we live in a free country, and just as the owners of Hobby Lobby are entitled to their idiosyncratic beliefs, so are you.

Lovely how that works out, isn't it?

Smug much?

Anyway, can you please tell me how creating a law explicitly enabling the goverment to impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion does not violate the Establishment Clause? I've tried to answer every question you've put to me, so please answer me this.

... what?

I... what?

Okay, fair enough: if you think RFRA works that way, then you have no idea how RFRA works. I'm sorry, there is no simpler explanation then that. RFRA does not work the way you state.

 jasper76 wrote:
...
It seems to me, and correct me if 'm wrong, that your whole argument hinges on the fact that corporations are "persons" entitled to the same rights enumerated for actual persons. We won't see eye to eye on this issue, as IMO it is absurd and even pernicious on its face.

And again, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, it one that is not widely shared by the legal profession, at least with regards to this jurisprudence.