0
rushmc

Another good court ruling

Recommended Posts

Here is a good one

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_UNION_FEES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-06-30-10-08-45

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says public sector unions can't collect fees from home health care workers who object to being affiliated with a union.

The justices on Monday said collecting the fees violates the First Amendment rights of workers who are not union members.


"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Add this to the list

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_BIRTH_CONTROL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-06-30-10-19-15

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.

The justices' 5-4 decision Monday is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies' health insurance plans.


"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

Add this to the list

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_BIRTH_CONTROL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-06-30-10-19-15

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.

The justices' 5-4 decision Monday is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies' health insurance plans.




That's a disgusting ruling. More lower middle class women getting shafted for being women, and not being affluent. People who need jobs take what's available; most simply don't have the luxury to "just don't work there" at an available job because its health insurance doesn't cover preventing unwanted pregnancies. More women paying about $40 a month for bc pills; how many meals might that pay for? More accidental un-planned births bogging down families who can't afford them, or aren't ready for them yet. How much extra burden on the social services the conservatives hate so much? And... more unwanted pregnancies, so more abortions. I hope the stridently anti-abortion Catholics on the Supreme Court are happy with that consequence.

Why worry about the Taliban bringing us back into the Dark Ages? - they're already here.

This, right here, is why so many moderates would rather vote for a less competent Democrat for President than a more competent Republican one: because a President's appointments to the Supreme Court really do affect everyone's lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not at all
When you consider that the whole fucking thing should have been shot down

but I understand that those opposed wish to push thier views on others
THAT is what is disgusting
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW
I believe you also support abortion on demand
Why are you worried about births???

the fed is helping to mitigate peoples responcibilities this way
So you are covered
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

BTW
I believe you also support abortion on demand
Why are you worried about births???

the fed is helping to mitigate peoples responcibilities this way
So you are covered



Well, Marc, that's because you have this need to simplistically categorize people. If you must know, I don't think there's any such thing as an "accidental" human life. While I don't necessarily view embryos in their earliest stages to be viable human lives, I happen to think abortion is often a tragedy that should be avoided and prevented by preventing unwanted pregnancies. But I do think that abortion of non-viable fetuses should be legal to stop the historical relegation of human females to second-class, often even sub-human, status in society, and because ultimately control of a woman's body should be hers alone, not someone else's to dictate. And no, I can't completely reconcile that with the rights of an unborn human being - it's an awful, but necessary, ethical compromise that must be made to have a humane society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy
Thanks for the thoughtful reply
I will so the same later but I am tied up for a big part of the rest of the day
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's entirely logical to be for both contraception and choice. It's not as logical to be against taxes, while wanting people to suffer the most expensive consequences of sex. Some of those are passed on if a mother goes on welfare, or if the child goes to school, or every time the parents take the tax deduction for a child.

Sex before or outside of marriage wasn't nearly as bad before Puritan America. Marriage only solemnizes the relationship that already exists. Why is it so important to make damn sure that the woman knows that she has to PAY if she has sex? There isn't nearly the stigma associated with a man having sex outside of marriage. And we all know that more men shirk their responsibilities than women, simply because they can.

Wendy P.

Edit to add: Andy's answer is far more eloquent
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

Add this to the list

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_BIRTH_CONTROL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-06-30-10-19-15

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.

The justices' 5-4 decision Monday is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies' health insurance plans.

I wonder how long it will take some corporations to "discover" their religious objections to antibiotics, or chemotherapy, or trauma care, or mental health treatment, or ...

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

Not at all
When you consider that the whole fucking thing should have been shot down

but I understand that those opposed wish to push thier views on others
THAT is what is disgusting



I bet the Viagra is still available and fully paid for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amazon

***Not at all
When you consider that the whole fucking thing should have been shot down

but I understand that those opposed wish to push thier views on others
THAT is what is disgusting



I bet the Viagra is still available and fully paid for.

If it is indeed, I hope a similar ruling is handed down.:|
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turtlespeed

******Not at all
When you consider that the whole fucking thing should have been shot down

but I understand that those opposed wish to push thier views on others
THAT is what is disgusting



I bet the Viagra is still available and fully paid for.

If it is indeed, I hope a similar ruling is handed down.:|

Which religion is offended by penile erections?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

*********Not at all
When you consider that the whole fucking thing should have been shot down

but I understand that those opposed wish to push thier views on others
THAT is what is disgusting



I bet the Viagra is still available and fully paid for.

If it is indeed, I hope a similar ruling is handed down.:|

Which religion is offended by penile erections?

Ironically, at least as to their name, possibly the Shakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon

***Add this to the list

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_BIRTH_CONTROL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-06-30-10-19-15

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.

The justices' 5-4 decision Monday is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies' health insurance plans.

I wonder how long it will take some corporations to "discover" their religious objections to antibiotics, or chemotherapy, or trauma care, or mental health treatment, or ...

Don

Wonder if you must
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy9o8

***BTW
I believe you also support abortion on demand
Why are you worried about births???

the fed is helping to mitigate peoples responcibilities this way
So you are covered



Well, Marc, that's because you have this need to simplistically categorize people. If you must know, I don't think there's any such thing as an "accidental" human life. While I don't necessarily view embryos in their earliest stages to be viable human lives, I happen to think abortion is often a tragedy that should be avoided and prevented by preventing unwanted pregnancies. But I do think that abortion of non-viable fetuses should be legal to stop the historical relegation of human females to second-class, often even sub-human, status in society, and because ultimately control of a woman's body should be hers alone, not someone else's to dictate. And no, I can't completely reconcile that with the rights of an unborn human being - it's an awful, but necessary, ethical compromise that must be made to have a humane society.

This may surprise you but, I agree with your post for the most part
I replied to Wendy some time back explaining my views and my inability to come to terms (a clear line) with this topic
Be it said, I think abortion is killing babies from conception
That said, I do not think abortion should be unavailable either.
My determination was, ok, we will have this procedure regardless however, I think states should determine this based on thier population, I do not think the feds should be involved at any level and at the very least, I should know that my federal tax dollars can not be used to fund it

We could have a whole different discussion about the womens body being theirs alone
How about a mans?
Big Gulp anyone?

Wendy, pay for having sex?
I will not address this because it is so disturbing to me
I will say that people are responcible for thier actions
What can happen is known

Andy, it is awful and you and I are not too far apart in the end
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amazon

***Not at all
When you consider that the whole fucking thing should have been shot down

but I understand that those opposed wish to push thier views on others
THAT is what is disgusting



I bet the Viagra is still available and fully paid for.

It shouldnt be
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

***
I wonder how long it will take some corporations to "discover" their religious objections to antibiotics, or chemotherapy, or trauma care, or mental health treatment, or ...

Don



Wonder if you must

Presumably some Jehovah's witness affiliated organizations would object to paying for blood transfusions.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By paying for having sex I don't mean money. I instead mean "the penalty," (if you didn't intend to get pregnant, then it is a penalty), which you must admit is rather unevenly applied.

I too wish for greater personal responsibility. Of fathers as well as mothers, and of boys and girls who think it's a toy to play with, rather than something potentially powerful.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wmw999

By paying for having sex I don't mean money. I instead mean "the penalty," (if you didn't intend to get pregnant, then it is a penalty), which you must admit is rather unevenly applied.

I too wish for greater personal responsibility. Of fathers as well as mothers, and of boys and girls who think it's a toy to play with, rather than something potentially powerful.

Wendy P.



I understand that you did not mean money
Hell, if you were talking money it would have been less disturbing

and getting pregnant is a penalty?

FCS Wendy!
Now you are blaming God because of the inequity???
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Southern_Man

******
I wonder how long it will take some corporations to "discover" their religious objections to antibiotics, or chemotherapy, or trauma care, or mental health treatment, or ...

Don



Wonder if you must

Presumably some Jehovah's witness affiliated organizations would object to paying for blood transfusions.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical2.htm

Would not be surprised with this court ruling to at least see a small business or two try it. :S
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wendy
Do you know that Hobby Lobby objected to only 4 out of 20 drugs listed?

The ONLY drugs they object to and do not want to pay for are those drugs that deal with a fertilized egg?

Do You???
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

Wendy
Do you know that Hobby Lobby objected to only 4 out of 20 drugs listed?

The ONLY drugs they object to and do not want to pay for are those drugs that deal with a fertilized egg?

Do You???



Plan B is NOT abortifacient. Apparently science also eludes conservatives on the Supreme Court.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0