[QUOTE=Lightran;45254396]Sorry liberals, this isn't socialism. It is not a corporation's job to insure that a woman can hop from penis to penis.[/QUOTE]
Destroy this thought, eliminate it from ever fucking existing.
Contraceptives aren't only used to prevent getting pregnant; a good number of women suffer from horrible pains and cramps during their periods, pains so horrible it actually makes them vomit and curl up.
Contraceptives prevent that, and you bet your shit something like this wouldn't have happened if men suffered the same pains every month.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;45256358]Sex ed in the states is abysmal, they claim condoms rarely work and abstinance is the safest for most states. Hell at my last job we had condoms locked in boxes and only 18 year olds or older can purchase them.[/QUOTE]
It should be middle-school level sex ed. anyway. There were people up in the Senior level of my High School that instantly changed their stance on bc as soon as they found out it's more than a condom in pill form for women. Because up to that point nobody decided to teach them that in 4+ years of health classes.
Just don't get a job at Hobby Lobby or Chik-Fil-A, the companies that are going to use this ruling probably won't even make up 5% of the marketplace.
You also don't need to use your company's healthcare plan anymore, you can get an individual or family plan from Healthcare.gov at a reasonable price.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;45256128]Corporations should not have religious rights regardless of the size of the corporation.[/QUOTE]
Corporations do not. The people who own those corporations do. If one person is financially responsible for everyone in their employ then they deserve the same rights as anyone else.
Note how the justices have specifically said that this ruling can only be applicable to closely managed corporations where one person or a small group of people are responsible for managing the company, not public corporations where there are a hundred different owners and a board of appointed executives makes the decisions.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45256336]It doesn't matter if people are against religion or not. Your religion should not be able to interfere with my right to live. Your religion doens't get to over extend it's bounds. My beliefs do not get to over extend themselves or interfere with you, why does yours get to with me?
Why does a belief, any belief, deserve to hinder or interfere with anyone else?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't, which is why the Supreme Court ruled in a way that respects the rights of both parties and provides for a solution where employers don't have to pay for policies they cannot support religiously and employees still remain covered. As clearly stated by the justices.
[QUOTE=Charades;45256505]Just don't get a job at Hobby Lobby or Chik-Fil-A, the companies that are going to use this ruling probably won't even make up 5% of the marketplace.
You also don't need to use your company's healthcare plan anymore, you can get an individual or family plan from Healthcare.gov at a reasonable price.[/QUOTE]
A reasonable price on $8/hr? Good luck paying for that. People can hardly feed/clothe themselves and have a roof over their head, let alone pay for health insurance because their employers are dickheads that don't want to fulfill their obligations.
[QUOTE=Charades;45256159]Or you could just find another employer rather than forcing your employer to disregard their religious beliefs.[/QUOTE]
Because jobs just grow on trees, right?
[QUOTE=TestECull;45256572]Because jobs just grow on trees, right?[/QUOTE]
Most religious companies already have stringent hiring practices.
You guys are complaining about companies that you probably wouldn't be hired at to begin with and are also not widespread outside of Chick-Fil-A.
[QUOTE=Charades;45256505]Just don't get a job at Hobby Lobby or Chik-Fil-A, the companies that are going to use this ruling probably won't even make up 5% of the marketplace.
You also don't need to use your company's healthcare plan anymore, you can get an individual or family plan from Healthcare.gov at a reasonable price.[/QUOTE]
Since you're really the only one defending this, I'd love to know what your answer is to this.
What happens when someone who doesn't believe in medical care of any sort creates a business? No coverage for anyone?
[QUOTE=Charades;45256588]Most religious companies already have stringent hiring practices.
You guys are complaining about companies that you probably wouldn't be hired at to begin with and are also not widespread outside of Chick-Fil-A.[/QUOTE]
Companies have to be equal opportunity, they can't discriminate based upon religion with applicants
[QUOTE=Charades;45256505]Just don't get a job at Hobby Lobby or Chik-Fil-A, the companies that are going to use this ruling probably won't even make up 5% of the marketplace.
You also don't need to use your company's healthcare plan anymore, you can get an individual or family plan from Healthcare.gov at a reasonable price.[/QUOTE]
Thats not the damn point, religious views should have literally no place in any business since the business it's self is not a human being. What stops corperations from forming some corprate religion that doesnt believe in taxes, healthcare, or any kind of employee care.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;45256611]Thats not the damn point, religious views should have literally no place in any business since the business it's self is not a human being. What stops corperations from forming some corprate religion that doesnt believe in taxes, healthcare, or any kind of employee care.[/QUOTE]
I would think your post is funny but I can actually see this happening.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;45256611]Thats not the damn point, religious views should have literally no place in any business since the business it's self is not a human being. What stops corperations from forming some corprate religion that doesnt believe in taxes, healthcare, or any kind of employee care.[/QUOTE]
When corporations invent their own religions, we come one step closer to a cyberpunk dystopia.
[QUOTE=Korova;45256591]Since you're really the only one defending this, I'd love to know what your answer is to this.
What happens when someone who doesn't believe in medical care of any sort creates a business? No coverage for anyone?[/QUOTE]
I'm going to bet that the courts would then force the company to pass on the savings to the employee so they can get their own individual plan.
Which is really what this Supreme Court ruling should have done.
[QUOTE=Charades;45256696]I'm going to bet that the courts would then force the company to pass on the savings to the employee so they can get their own individual plan.
Which is really what this Supreme Court ruling should have done.[/QUOTE]
Which results in higher taxes due to additional stress on the government that wouldn't be there if these businesses would fulfill their obligations. The very people who are defending Hobby Lobby's right to do this are precisely the people that would have the biggest fit over tax dollars being used towards helping these people.
[QUOTE=Charades;45256696]I'm going to bet that the courts would then force the company to pass on the savings to the employee so they can get their own individual plan.
Which is really what this Supreme Court ruling should have done.[/QUOTE]
it won't though, when has the supreme court ever ruled on something in a way that everybody wins
[QUOTE=codemaster85;45256611]Thats not the damn point, religious views should have literally no place in any business since the business it's self is not a human being. What stops corperations from forming some corprate religion that doesnt believe in taxes, healthcare, or any kind of employee care.[/QUOTE]
1. Corporations do not have religious rights. That is not what this is about. Read the article before you say dumb, irrelevant stuff, because it's right there where it specifies that this ruling only applies to contraceptives and only to closely-held companies. If a company is owned by one person, then that person's religious views may affect how they spend money and as a consequence may affect the company that they bankroll. It has nothing to do with businesses being human beings, it's about how individuals can be forced by the government into paying for policies that violate their religious beliefs.
2. The government has the right to overrule religious belief when there is a compelling public interest. When a company does not want to pay for 4 out of 18 methods of contraception, with a system already in place for the government to cover it, there is no compelling public interest in overriding their religious freedom. If a company says they don't want to pay taxes or healthcare altogether, it's a different matter entirely.
In [URL="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1441988.html"]Adams v. Commissioner[/URL] in 1999, a Quaker tried to argue that paying federal income taxes was against her religious beliefs. The court ruled that the government has a compelling interest in collecting taxes that is more important to society than her expression of religious belief.
Everything you are raising has already been addressed by the article itself and by the Supreme Court justices who wrote the ruling.
[editline]30th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;45256741]it won't though, when has the supreme court ever ruled on something in a way that everybody wins[/QUOTE]
Jesus christ, [i]right now[/i]. The solution the Supreme Court justices came up with is one where everybody wins, it just seems everyone here is too busy jerking off over the title to actually read the case.
[quote]Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. [b]We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty[/b]. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.[/quote]
Company doesn't have to pay for contraceptives, government does it instead via public healthcare. Company owner doesn't have to pay for things that violate their religious beliefs. Employees still get full healthcare coverage. Everybody wins.
[B]The rulings made by the supreme court set precedences for future cases[/B]. This one says that a company is just as much a person as you and me.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;45256358]Sex ed in the states is abysmal, they claim condoms rarely work and abstinance is the safest for most states. Hell at my last job we had condoms locked in boxes and only 18 year olds or older can purchase them.[/QUOTE]
My sex education was luckily super good. We were taught that condoms and other preventive measures are a must, and told us about the risks of STDs/unwanted pregnancies. We were taught more about relationships and why they should matter.
Everyone deserves healthcare and being able to have a safe and responsible sex life is part of that healthcare.
Free contraceptives reduce the rates of STDs, unwanted pregnancies etc. It would only improve society.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;45256100]This holy shit people are stupid. Why do you think some girls around 13-16 year olds take birth control. I wish there was a huge fucking psa about birth control and stop hearing idiots say "well im not paying you to be a slut".[/QUOTE]
I've been off and on birth control since I was 13 due to highly irregular periods. I'm talking two months long with gaps of six months between them which caused me to lose enough blood that I went anemic. Normally, that sort of thing straightens up as puberty finishes up and the hormones settle. I'm almost 26 and it hasn't, yet. I've been in enough pain in the past that I nearly puked and it lasted for three days. So, I'm guessing that I'm (un)lucky and my hormones are straight fucked.
Basically, I'm the sort of person where birth control is a medical necessity up until the point where I can finally start HRT.
[QUOTE=catbarf;45256803]1. Corporations do not have religious rights. That is not what this is about. Read the article before you say dumb, irrelevant stuff, because it's right there where it specifies that this ruling only applies to contraceptives and only to closely-held companies. If a company is owned by one person, then that person's religious views may affect how they spend money and as a consequence may affect the company that they bankroll. It has nothing to do with businesses being human beings, it's about how individuals can be forced by the government into paying for policies that violate their religious beliefs.
2. The government has the right to overrule religious belief when there is a compelling public interest. When a company does not want to pay for 4 out of 18 methods of contraception, with a system already in place for the government to cover it, there is no compelling public interest in overriding their religious freedom. If a company says they don't want to pay taxes or healthcare altogether, it's a different matter entirely.
In [URL="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1441988.html"]Adams v. Commissioner[/URL] in 1999, a Quaker tried to argue that paying federal income taxes was against her religious beliefs. The court ruled that the government has a compelling interest in collecting taxes that is more important to society than her expression of religious belief.
Everything you are raising has already been addressed by the article itself and by the Supreme Court justices who wrote the ruling.
[editline]30th June 2014[/editline]
Jesus christ, [i]right now[/i]. The solution the Supreme Court justices came up with is one where everybody wins, it just seems everyone here is too busy jerking off over the title to actually read the case.
Company doesn't have to pay for contraceptives, government does it instead via public healthcare. Company owner doesn't have to pay for things that violate their religious beliefs. Employees still get full healthcare coverage. Everybody wins.[/QUOTE]
1. Birth control is not just a contraceptive and is often used to treat severe symptoms related to menstruation. If youre hiring the public, your religious beliefs should have literally no bearing on the employee's well being period. There should be literally no excuse for that. Like said earlier, what stops company owners to go to jehova's witness and not have to pay any kind of care because its not part of their beliefs.
2. Again birth control isnt just use for contraception so it shouldn't be considered soley as such, if this was for condoms or a hysterectomy then you would have a point since they are soley contraceptive measures. The whole corporate religion was stretching, but its ridiculous period to allow him to circumvent the standard because of what he believes in. It shouldnt matter what he believes in, hes responsible for the employee's well being.
It's apparent that not many people know how insurance works. If a medication is necessary for a medical reason, then it will be covered. It's the same reason my health insurance covered my eye doctor visits when I had a scratched cornea even though I don't have vision.
If birth control medications are being prescribed to deal with a medical issue such as irregular or painful periods and things of that nature, then it's no longer "contraception", but medication for a medical condition instead, and therefore will be covered.
So no, this doesn't mean that women who work at hobby lobby who need these medications for medical reasons won't be able to get them. It just means that these medications, when prescribed for the purpose of contraception will not be covered by their plans and they would have to pay out of pocket for them, or go through the exchanges and find a new plan instead of taking the one that hobby lobby gives them.
Also, the stipulations for this exemption HAVE been spelled out by the supreme court in this case, so the "blood transfusion" and other slippery slope fallacies are poor arguments made by people who didn't read the ruling.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45257274]It's apparent that not many people know how insurance works. If a medication is necessary for a medical reason, then it will be covered. It's the same reason my health insurance covered my eye doctor visits when I had a scratched cornea even though I don't have vision.
If birth control medications are being prescribed to deal with a medical issue such as irregular or painful periods and things of that nature, then it's no longer "contraception", but medication for a medical condition instead, and therefore will be covered.
So no, this doesn't mean that women who work at hobby lobby who need these medications for medical reasons won't be able to get them. It just means that these medications, when prescribed for the purpose of contraception will not be covered by their plans and they would have to pay out of pocket for them, or go through the exchanges and find a new plan instead of taking the one that hobby lobby gives them.
Also, the stipulations for this exemption HAVE been spelled out by the supreme court in this case, so the "blood transfusion" and other slippery slope fallacies are poor arguments made by people who didn't read the ruling.[/QUOTE]
Bawha! Not always the case. I've had to have doctors write letters to insurance companies because the insurance didn't want to cover the medication and had deemed it "unnecessary". When it comes to birth control, insurance companies are automatically going to think "contraceptive". My mom had to go into graphic detail to the insurance rep to get my medication covered.
[QUOTE=SadisticGecko;45257334]Bawha! Not always the case. I've had to have doctors write letters to insurance companies because the insurance didn't want to cover the medication and had deemed it "unnecessary". When it comes to birth control, insurance companies are automatically going to think "contraceptive". My mom had to go into graphic detail to the insurance rep to get my medication covered.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I know this. Same thing with me and some other medication. Had to get my doctor to write letters too. But in the end, my medication was covered, and looks like yours was too. So yes, that is the case. In fact, you just proved my point that medications needed for actual medical reasons will be covered.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45257383]Yeah, I know this. Same thing with me and some other medication. Had to get my doctor to write letters too. But in the end, my medication was covered, and looks like yours was too. So yes, that is the case. In fact, you just proved my point that medications needed for actual medical reasons will be covered.[/QUOTE]
It was covered that one time. Then I went off of it for a stint, and when I tried to go back on it, the insurance company refused to pay for it period despite being for the same reasons.
[QUOTE=toaster468;45255198]I can't even believe your inability to read. [B][I][U]ONLY PILLS THAT CAUSE ABORTIONS WERE OBJECTED TO BY HOBBY LOBBY[/U][/I][/B]
Was that clear enough for you? You can still buy contraceptives that change your period.[/QUOTE]
Please tell me what pills cause abortions. As a biochemist I really want to know what FDA approved contraceptives cause the spontaneous abortion of a fetus as you've claimed in this thread because I've never, ever, heard of such things existing. There's been some speculation that ulipristal acetate might have the potential (emphasis on the might) to inhibit implantation by reducing the thickness of the endometrium. That hasn't been proven and it is not even suggested as the primary mechanism of birth control. Levonorgestrel has been shown to be ineffective at preventing pregnancies after ovulation. It's primary and perhaps only means of contraceptive activity is the prevention of ovulation.
The only other category that might be considered would be that of IUDs and that's a major stretch. Copper IUDs almost exclusively work by producing a toxic sperm environment and physical blockage of the uterus. The foreign body basically triggers an immune response and small tissue damage partially inhibits the growth of the uterine lining. Thinning of the uterine lining does not prevent implantation, rather it decreases the number of suitable binding sites and in turn reduces the probability of implantation. Not all fertilized eggs implant anyway, so really it's a bogus argument. To say that life starts at conception or even implantation results in a situation where millions, and perhaps even billions of 'people' die without a single soul ever knowing they existed. Good luck detecting a fertilized egg or even blastocyst in those situations. I don't think we have any practical tools to reliably detect such failures in vivo.
EDIT:
Despite this, I think people are failing to realize that the ACA and HHS already have provisions to provide non-profit religious organization employees access to contraceptives even if their employers object to such treatments. Same goes with transfusions and everything else. Those provisions are now being extended to for-profit organizations which might seem dubious or unfair as the burden is partially being shifted to the tax payer, but if it ever really becomes a problem it's pretty good justification for a single payer system.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;45257534]Please tell me what pills cause abortions. As a biochemist I really want to know what FDA approved contraceptives cause the spontaneous abortion of a fetus as you've claimed in this thread because I've never, ever, heard of such things existing. There's been some speculation that ulipristal acetate might have the potential (emphasis on the might) to inhibit implantation by reducing the thickness of the endometrium. That hasn't been proven and it is not even suggested as the primary mechanism of birth control. Levonorgestrel has been shown to be ineffective at preventing pregnancies after ovulation. It's primary and perhaps only means of contraceptive activity is the prevention of ovulation.
The only other category that might be considered would be that of IUDs and that's a major stretch. Copper IUDs almost exclusively work by producing a toxic sperm environment and physical blockage of the uterus. The foreign body basically triggers an immune response and small tissue damage partially inhibits the growth of the uterine lining. Thinning of the uterine lining does not prevent implantation, rather it decreases the number of suitable binding sites and in turn reduces the probability of implantation. Not all fertilized eggs implant anyway, so really it's a bogus argument. To say that life starts at conception or even implantation results in a situation where millions, and perhaps even billions of 'people' die without a single soul ever knowing they existed. Good luck detecting a fertilized egg or even blastocyst in those situations. I don't think we have any practical tools to reliably detect such failures in vivo.[/QUOTE]
literally first google result for "abortion pill"
[url]http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/abortion/the-abortion-pill[/url]
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;45257548]literally first google result for "abortion pill"
[url]http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/abortion/the-abortion-pill[/url][/QUOTE]
The abortion pill isn't a contraceptive.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;45257548]literally first google result for "abortion pill"
[URL]http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/abortion/the-abortion-pill[/URL][/QUOTE]
Useful, but not a contraceptive.
EDIT:
Actually, at 2mg daily it does work as a contraceptive, but the abortifactant dose is usually around 600mg. Seems to rarely be used as such though.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;45257581]Useful, but not a contraceptive.[/QUOTE]
Oh, OK. Sorry.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.