This USSC decision is the first in a string that will lead to completely overturning Roe v. Wade.These people don't believe in science so when science says that they
are not abortive measures they simply say they don't believe it.
This USSC decision is the first in a string that will lead to completely overturning Roe v. Wade.
They have now set precedent on a corporation's religious belief that abortion occurs the day/the moment after sex occurs .
Not going to lie...I'm a conservative and think it's funny as hell how twisted people are over this. As an employer the Hobby Lobby is a progressives wet ****ing dream. The paid $6 an hour over minimum wage and provided health care with 16 different forms of contraception authorized. They were the model of what leftists believed business should be. Let them choose to not cover an abortion pill and watch the left lose their ****ing minds. Hell yes...it's kinda hilarious.
:scared: OMG They're going to overturn Roe v. Wade!!! :scared:
<enter astro-turf protestors and SEIU goons>
the cfo probably had an idea
the hr director probably also
the owner...not so much (at least imo)
there is only so much detail i give to the owner....the rest is just superfluous
i want him concentrating on bringing in revenue....not watching what we do and dont insure on a policy
that is why you hire guys like me....i take care of all those details
and we were self insured at one time....really bad decision on previous cfo's part
unless you have thousands of employees, the contingent liability will eat you alive
but when the ACA was passed, a lot of people got very aware of what they had to cover at that point
why? well, because never before had our government mandated certain coverages
and when you open people's eyes to what the law actually read, that is when people starting making waves
I think the point about HL's case (and it's sort of irrelevant to the big picture) is if providing a basic healthcare package that includes BC poses a 'substantial burden' on you free exercise of religion, and that's what HL claimed, then someone should surely have spent the 5 minutes to check whether their plan pre-ACA covered abortion pills. The fact that they didn't care enough to ASK provides a decent window into how important the BC coverage was to their exercise of religion, not much at all. But post-ACA, what they didn't care enough to ask about is now sufficiently burdensome that they can nullify a law of general applicability because to comply with it poses a substantial burden on their religion? It's tough to believe.
Like I said it doesn't matter because other employers DID care enough to ask, and they in fact refused to cover ANY, pre and post ACA. So HL are hypocrites, but that doesn't matter - take HL off the list of named parties and insert another and we get the same ruling.
Oh yeah, really geared up!Your post is an example of why Democratic voters are more geared up for this election than Republicans, especially women.
Please continue with your sarcasm treating women as second-class citizens.
Meanwhile, your own Republican party is divided on every issue, including this one .
It wouldn't be a relevant issue AT ALL had the government not passed legislation that imposed this on others.Let's concede that HL is a decent employer because by all accounts they really ARE. Good for them!
But that doesn't matter because the opinion isn't limited to HL and it's not limited to the four types of BC that HL didn't cover. It has a MUCH broader reach than that, covers employers good and bad, who might cover 0 or 3 or 18 of the BC options.
That's from a Republican pollster--so you bet oh yeah?Oh yeah, really geared up!
The 84 IQ card from a Libertarian right--ironic.While going after the IQ of 84 and below might be liberals move now
and then the "attack the lean" card from a Libefrtarian right--more irony.(you wouldn't know obviously because you're a "moderate"....)
and if the ACA was never passed, those 4 items would still be available to their employees
unintended consequences strike again
Well now you have a government not passing any legislation so you should be happy.It wouldn't be a relevant issue AT ALL had the government not passed legislation that imposed this on others.
It wouldn't be a relevant issue AT ALL had the government not passed legislation that imposed this on others.
Wait, what the actual ****?
That is far from "as a rule," amigo. Plenty of liberals agree with the right to free speech or to bear arms, and who the hell are you to say we don't?
what i know is that liberals are misrepresenting what the ruling means.
see this thread.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-media/198350-mediamatters-montage-hobby-lobby-ruling.html
the ruling allows companies to maintain the same policy they had before the administration, not congress, decided to mandate ALL companies provide for free ALL forms of approved forms contraception under ACA.
NO i'm not mistaken.
And rather than write a Law that is explicit they left the dirty details to a bunch of bureaucrats at HHS (Kathleen Sebelius fer crissake) to come up with their mandated list of subjective dream coverage items.
Anyone with any sense should at this point realize that we wouldn't be going through any of this if Obama had kept his promise about keeping your coverage and had instead focused on covering the un-covered.
As a liar, the man is very proficient and slick.
Actually...you are mistaken. The ruling allows more than "allowing companies to maintain the same policy". It allows companies owned by religious groups to exclude from coverage, that which they deem "offensive" to their beliefs.
Actually...you are mistaken. The ruling allows more than "allowing companies to maintain the same policy". It allows companies owned by religious groups to exclude from coverage, that which they deem "offensive" to their beliefs.
Actually...you are mistaken. The ruling allows more than "allowing companies to maintain the same policy". It allows companies owned by religious groups to exclude from coverage, that which they deem "offensive" to their beliefs.
Actually...you are mistaken. The ruling allows more than "allowing companies to maintain the same policy". It allows companies owned by religious groups to exclude from coverage, that which they deem "offensive" to their beliefs.
I'll chalk that up to ignorance of Libertarians.The 84 IQ card from a Libertarian right--ironic.
and then the "attack the lean" card from a Libefrtarian right--more irony.
Yes I am a moderate, especially compared to what you bring to the forum .
The problem is that it puts a precedent of using religion to ignore law. The bigger problem is the "narrowing" aspect of a rulings. Its trying to flaunt law by making it apply only for the few. That is what is unconstitutional.
Yes, it was a blatant, deliberate, and hurtful/hateful lie from the get go, and his base continues to defend it. Which is why I think as the great experiment, the USA has now failed. We who love and value liberty were too busy tending to business to notice the enemy within that has now eroded almost all our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities that they make us believe are still ours but which they can now allow or take away with impunity.
The Hobby Lobby case is just the tip of the iceberg as the left will continue to try to tighten the vise until all our rights are assigned to us by somebody else and we will have no right to be who are what we are or any choice in our own destinies.
these companies like hobby lobby are NOT changing their coverage on contraception because of this ruling. they will maintain what have already in place.
stop pushing the false narrative that these companies are going to cancel contraception coverage in their insurance policies they now provide for their employees because of this ruling.
hobby lobby covers 16 of 20 contraception methods approved by the FDA.
why would they suddenly change and say no to ALL contraception coverage?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?