View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Tell the truth, Ms. Dupuy

Posted: July 10, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: July 10, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

On July 3, The Signal published a column by Tina Dupuy titled “Freedom for Hobby Lobby’s religious rights.”

That morning I heard a radio commentator say, “liberals will lie to you.” Well, Ms. Dupuy, I will not call you a liar; however, you are deliberately distorting the truth and purposely misleading those readers who are ignorant of the facts in the case.

You said, “Hobby Lobby was able to deny working women of childbearing age birth control coverage through their company’s insurance plan.”

Therein lies the distortion. Under the ACA, nonexempt employers are generally required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including the four that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus.

Those four pills are the only ones denied by Hobby Lobby as they were considered abortion pills. That is the decision upheld by the Supreme Court.

As uncomfortable as you may be with facts, here they are: There remain 16 of the 20 pills that Hobby Lobby still includes in its insurance plan.

That does not deny working women birth control coverage.

They have 16 choices. You purposely implied otherwise. The knowledgeable readers are now on to you.

 

Comments

ricketzz: Posted: July 10, 2014 6:56 a.m.

Religious exceptions are the slipperiest of slippery slopes. Put the wall back up. No company should have domain over the medical practices of its workers. Three of the 4 methods prevent implantation, not kill a zygote. But, so what, religious prejudice has no place in a business with a storefront. If you want to benefit from being in the USA you should welcome all taxpayers equally.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 10, 2014 7:55 a.m.

Tina Dupuy's columns are almost painful to read. I'm not sure how she gets away with telling the whoppers that she does. Of course, she's a columnist and she must be "provocative." But her stuff is just bad....


philellis: Posted: July 10, 2014 8:11 a.m.

@ricketxx - you are confusing religious prejudice with religious belief. What you exhibit is religious prejudice. How is your personal multiculturalism working today? Or are you divorcing religion from your belief in multiculturalism? Perhaps you think that we should be inclusive of Muslim culture, but shun the religion?

@ar, she gets away with it because she is a liberal.


CaptGene: Posted: July 10, 2014 8:13 a.m.

cricketzz: "No company should have domain over the medical practices of its workers"

And none do. Non sequitur.


Nitesho: Posted: July 10, 2014 9:08 a.m.

"No company should have domain over the medical practices of its workers"

But it's ok for the government have domain over the medical practices of its citizens?


tech: Posted: July 10, 2014 9:22 a.m.

"They have 16 choices."

Women have the choice of all FDA approved contraceptives, including the 4 abortifacients. Hobby Lobby et al won't be subsidizing the 4.

The objective of those distorting the SCOTUS decision is to use government's monopoly on force to coerce private funding of abortion and animate the "War on Women" non sequitur for perceived political benefit.

Ms. Dupuy's column was designed to appeal to low information voters who don't understand and won't educate themselves on points of RFRA law.


therightstuff: Posted: July 10, 2014 11:31 a.m.

Why is it that these women demand government stay out of their reproductive choices but demand government pay for their contraceptives?


chefgirl358: Posted: July 10, 2014 1:02 p.m.

Actually the guy that wrote the lte is wrong too. It wasn't 4 pills that were excluded, it was 4 methods of birth control comprised of the morning after pill and the IUD...which science totally disputes as being abortifacents. But unfortunately, you have a bunch of men making ignorant decisions about women's health and their bodies.

TRS, you know Obamacare and insurance pays for Viagra now too, I don't see people screaming about that! Health insurance, as well as programs like Planned Parenthood, etc., provide birth control because it's a lot cheaper than babies people don't want. Additionally, many women are on birth control for reasons totally unrelated to avoiding pregnancy. Many women take them for regulating their hormones, menstrual cycles, helping to decrease cramps, treating medical conditions such as endemetriosis, ovarian cysts, lowering your risk of ovarian cancer if it runs in your family, acne treatment (hormone related), and many other valid medical purposes.


Unreal: Posted: July 10, 2014 1:23 p.m.

There are PLENTY of birth control pills and methods available through the Hobby Lobby health plan, and the "Ring" is very effective and the one that female Gynecologists themselves use the most and is also available to Hobby Lobby employees.

Only the 2 birth control pills, 1 device, and the abortion pill are not approved by Hobby Lobby.

A person can always get insurance for themselves if they want to or pay over the counter, they are NOT expensive.


stevehw: Posted: July 10, 2014 1:27 p.m.

"Why is it that these women demand government stay out of their reproductive choices but demand government pay for their contraceptives?"

Who demanded *government* pay for their contraceptives? Not the employees of HL, nor the government itself in that case.

In fact, it was the right-wing SCOTUS justices who decided this case who actually said that the government should pay for the birth control methods which they excused HL's employee insurance from covering.


Unreal: Posted: July 10, 2014 1:30 p.m.

chefgirl358: If I drive down the street to get acne medicine I still have to be careful not to run over and kill people. Needing medicine for myself does not negate my need to not kill others while caring for myself.

Hormones and can be balanced using birth control pills that do not kill after the moment of conception.


stevehw: Posted: July 10, 2014 1:33 p.m.

"The most straightforward way of doing this [providing birth control to HL employees] would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers' religious objections."

Burwell v Hobby Lobby


tech: Posted: July 10, 2014 1:51 p.m.

"Page 2: Under [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act], a Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement. But in order for the HHS mandate to be sustained, it must also constitute the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate plainly fails that test. There are other ways Congress or HHS could equally insure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, all FDA-approved contraceptives."

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/06/30/key-excerpts-from-justice-alitos-contraceptive-ruling/


tech: Posted: July 10, 2014 1:58 p.m.

"TRS, you know Obamacare and insurance pays for Viagra now too…"

I don't support funding for that class of drugs either. However, one must acknowledge that Viagra is rather different in effect reproductively than contraceptives in general and abortifacients in particular. Also, are there any religious conscience objections to Viagra et al?

Seems a non sequitur to me unless someone is keeping a gender scorecard.


tech: Posted: July 10, 2014 2:30 p.m.

Many liberals say that this ruling was flawed because the Religious Freedom Restoration Act -- the 1993 law the case turned on -- doesn't protect for-profit corporations. Yet only two of the justices took that view; the other two dissenters refused to endorse it.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act says that when the government imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion, it has to show that it has used the least burdensome means possible. The majority relied on the administration's account that the accommodation is less burdensome than the full-blown mandate, and it said the mandate was therefore illegal. That didn't mean that the accommodation itself passed legal muster. The court wasn't saying that the accommodation is the right way to promote the government's coverage goals while respecting religious freedom -- it was saying that its existence shows that the mandate can't be the right way.

To review: The court majority, in the Hobby Lobby case, declined to rule on whether the accommodation is compatible with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and put off consideration of that issue for another case. In its Wheaton order, it again declined to rule on the legality of the accommodation while it awaits a full review. There is no inconsistency, no "retreat" (as Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor put it).

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-07/gullible-liberals-misread-birth-control-ruling


therightstuff: Posted: July 10, 2014 2:32 p.m.

steve: """Who demanded *government* pay for their contraceptives? Not the employees of HL, nor the government itself in that case."""

Was this case not in opposition to the Affordable Care Act? Is the ACA not a government program?

And thanks chefgirl, you're correct about the expanded benefits of birth control pills for women. And no, I honestly didn't know about the Viagra coverage. I am surprised that's covered.


therightstuff: Posted: July 10, 2014 2:35 p.m.

And here is comes...straight from the jackasses mouth:

"We should be afraid of this court. That five guys should start determining what contraceptions are legal or not. … It is so stunning," Nancy Pelosi

Right on cue we see the Democratic political strategy for the 2014 mid-term elections. "Be afraid...be VERY afraid!"


stevehw: Posted: July 10, 2014 2:43 p.m.

"Was this case not in opposition to the Affordable Care Act? Is the ACA not a government program?"

Yes, but that's not what was being litigated. HL wanted an exception to a generally applicable law. The question was about HL's employee insurance covering contraception.

It was *the right wing justices* who proposed that the government pay for it instead of HL or any other corporation which claims a "sincerely held religious belief".


therightstuff: Posted: July 10, 2014 2:48 p.m.

Got it, Steve. Thanks. As we know, Obama changed the ACA law over 20 times personally without the Supreme Court or even Congress.

What do you think HIS motivation was?


17trillion: Posted: July 10, 2014 2:51 p.m.

"TRS, you know Obamacare and insurance pays for Viagra now too, I don't see people screaming about that!"

Good point Chefgirl. However, lets be honest. If we were comparing, then employers should provide Viagra, penis pumps, Vaseline, porno, penis enlargement pills, penis enlargement surgery, women standing around with no tops, feathers, edible panties, lacy bras, wigs for our women in all colors of the rainbow, and....sheesh, that's only 11 items so I need to come up 9 more to make a factual comparison. I guess there is no comparison. So "you" lose 4 out of 20, 20% of available birth control measures and you suggest that the one thing that helps older men have sex shouldn't be covered? Yea, that's a brilliant analysis.

"Additionally, many women are on birth control for reasons totally unrelated to avoiding pregnancy. Many women take them for regulating their hormones, menstrual cycles, helping to decrease cramps, treating medical conditions such as endemetriosis, ovarian cysts, lowering your risk of ovarian cancer if it runs in your family, acne treatment (hormone related), and many other valid medical purposes."

Please show me were the morning after pills helps any of the above? How utterly weak Chefgirl! An IUD does nothing to prevent ovarian cysts. In fact, I just did a small bit of research and I found that an IUD might actually CAUSE breast cancer. Sheesh.... What part of "there are still SIXTEEN medications that are covered" don't you understand?

I find it amazing how liberals, I know you aren't one CG, and some women are so freaking hysterical about something that costs 9 dollars a month at Walgreens. IT'S A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE THAT MY EMPLOYER PAY FOR MY ABILITY TO HAVE SEX WITHOUT GETTING PREGNANT! I must have been absent the day they were teaching about what a civil right was.


17trillion: Posted: July 10, 2014 3:02 p.m.

"Yes, but that's not what was being litigated."

What are you talking about? It's exactly what is being litigated. The federal government, via the ACA, mandated 20 forms of birth control and the HL objected to 4 of them, 20%. Now women and liberals are wetting themselves because......ahhhh.......damn, I have no idea why.

"We should be afraid of this court. That five guys should start determining what contraceptions are legal or not. … It is so stunning," Nancy Pelosi

What an ignorant toad and anyone that agrees with this statement is an ignorant toad as well. Is there any liberal here who agrees with this statement? Really, I want to know.


chefgirl358: Posted: July 10, 2014 3:57 p.m.

The point that I am really trying to get through to everyone, especially you Unreal, is that these items are NOT ABORTIFACENTS according to science. The morning after pill, does NOT cause an existing pregnancy to terminate, neither do any of the other methods. THAT is a big sticking point for many of us, is that they made a decision based on personal/religious opinion and not on science based evidence.

Additionally, I just truly believe that no employer should have any say in what happens between any patient and their doctor. If the employer provides insurance, great! But anything beyond that, is truly NONE of their business. Whether we are talking about birth control, plastic surgery, or anything else I can possibly fathom, any medical decisions should be solely between a doctor, patient and the insurance company, NOT the provider. Before Obamacare, employers still offered insurance and I would bet money that insurance always covered these things, it's just NOW with the Obamacare bs that these companies are trying to get exemptions and they are all pushing the boundaries to dictate what they want to be able to cover.


17trillion: Posted: July 10, 2014 4:03 p.m.

"Additionally, I just truly believe that no employer should have any say in what happens between any patient and their doctor. If the employer provides insurance, great! But anything beyond that, is truly NONE of their business."

BS! You've obviously never been an employer. Do you know health insurance isn't free? If I provide it to my employees, and I do, should I pay for breast enhancements? Veneers? Hair transplants? Is that my business, how much all that coverage would cost? How freakin naïve of you! Go buy your own damned IUD if you need one so bad and the other 16 available measures don't suit your needs. Nobody is pushing any boundaries, YOU HAVE SIXTEEN DIFFERENT OPTIONS! Jesus H Christ, how about 30 options? 50 options? A thousand options? I tell you what CG, open your own company and cover whatever it is that any employee wants.


stevehw: Posted: July 10, 2014 4:37 p.m.

Let's try this again:

"Why is it that these women demand government stay out of their reproductive choices but DEMAND GOVERNMENT PAY for their contraceptives?"

See how that's NOT what the case was about? Or wasn't, until the conservative Supreme Court justices said that the government should pay for it once they make exceptions for HL and other "religious" companies.


stevehw: Posted: July 10, 2014 4:39 p.m.

17...

How about whatever options the woman and her doctor decide on, rather than what the owner's religious beliefs dictate?

Of course, this whole debate adds to the case that single payer would be preferable, thus getting employers out of the middle of health care entirely.


stevehw: Posted: July 10, 2014 4:41 p.m.

" I would bet money that insurance always covered these things, it's just NOW with the Obamacare bs that these companies are trying to get exemptions and they are all pushing the boundaries to dictate what they want to be able to cover. "

You'd win that bet. Before Obamacare, HL didn't seem to have any issue with these contraceptive methods.


stevehw: Posted: July 10, 2014 4:47 p.m.

BTW, the opinion of the court related to the *entire* contraceptive mandate, not just 4 specific types.

So another company can now claim that *all* contraceptives violate the company's "sincerely held beliefs", and get out of providing insurance coverage for them.


therightstuff: Posted: July 10, 2014 4:57 p.m.

So Steve, back to MY question. Obviously Barack Obama didn't make over 20 arbitrary changes to the healthcare law for "religious" reasons. So what was HIS motivation?


stevehw: Posted: July 10, 2014 5:09 p.m.

Well, for starters, IIRC, it was because *businesses* were whining about 4 years not being enough time to prepare for it. So in that case, he acted like (wait for it) a Republican and kowtowed to business interests.

But let's go back to HL...do you agree that the precedent is now set for *any* company (or at least, closely-held companies) to assert a "sincerely held religious belief" and claim exemption from any number of generally applicable laws, under the RFRA, since it now applies to "artificial persons" (businesses)?


tech: Posted: July 10, 2014 5:35 p.m.

Given your past statements on slippery slope fallacies, is that now your arguement, Steve?


CaptGene: Posted: July 10, 2014 6:50 p.m.

Tech, you beat me to it.


CaptGene: Posted: July 10, 2014 7:05 p.m.

steve: "Before Obamacare, HL didn't seem to have any issue with these contraceptive methods"

Maybe that's what they think over at democraticunderground, but that's not what they say in the court filing:

"Coverage of these drugs was not included knowingly or deliberately by the Green family. Such coverage is out of step with the rest of the Hobby Lobby’s policies, which explicitly exclude abortion-causing contraceptive devices and pregnancy-terminating drugs,"


therightstuff: Posted: July 10, 2014 7:12 p.m.

Wow Steve, you moved off the subject of Obama's 20 plus changes to the healthcare law in record time. Because he was "acting like a Republican" is the best you've got? Really?

We all know why your leader moved the most painful elements of Obamacare beyond the 2014 and 2016 election cycles. It wasn't for 'religious' reasons like you're criticizing now but raw politics which is apparently OK by you. This healthcare scam was sold that the American people needed it IMMEDIATELY or people would die. Add that to the massive list of lies your leader has told about Obamacare.

And yes, I join the chorus of others who notice your hypocrisy of the "slippery slope" argument. Is this the same guy who demeaned anyone who suggested gay marriage was a slippery slope? Geez....


chefgirl358: Posted: July 11, 2014 9:06 p.m.

Capt Gene, I find that to be total bs. I knew at least 3 women with IUD's in the past. Their insurance did not fail to cover their IUD's and one of them worked for a catholic hospital!

17, bull. Those are things insurance always covered, it never cost the employer more! What bull. So where does it stop? What if some tool who owns a company doesn't think breast reconstruction is necessary after cancer, maybe thinks it's superficial and vain and they don't think insurance should cover it because technically it's plastic surgery usually involving implants? You have a problem with that? Burn victim skin grafts? Those are plastic surgery.

No, it is definitely NONE of your business. If you don't like it, don't offer coverage to your employees at all. We cannot let companies start dictating what type of medical care they think people should have because of THEIR wishes.


stevehw: Posted: July 11, 2014 10:18 p.m.

We'll see how much of a slippery slope it is soon enough. However, the ruling is *quite* clear that it allows corporations to deny coverage for *any* kind of contraception, and all they have to do is claim doing so violates a "sincerely held religious belief".

Not every argument which discusses consequences is a slippery slope fallacy, you know. Saying that marriage equality will lead to legalizing bestiality? Uh, yes. Saying that a ruling which allows corporations to have religious beliefs will lead to corporations asking for religious exemptions to the law? Not so much.


CaptGene: Posted: July 11, 2014 10:21 p.m.

steve: "Not every argument which discusses consequences is a slippery slope fallacy..." Just the ones that serve your agenda are exempt!


chefgirl358: Posted: July 11, 2014 10:23 p.m.

I'll say one thing I bet most of us will actually agree on, as contentious as the current topic is...none of this would even be an issue at all if it weren't for the cluster**** that is Obamacare.


tech: Posted: July 11, 2014 10:56 p.m.

Retread the excerpts I posted previously, Steve. One noted the HHS failed to use the least restrictive means in accordance with RFRA. Your assertions are broader than the ruling, hence my noting slippery slope.

(3) This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice. United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 , which upheld the payment of Social Security taxes despite an employer's religious objection, is not analogous. It turned primarily on the special problems associated with a national system of taxation; and if Lee were a RFRA case, the fundamental point would still be that there is no less restrictive alternative to the categorical requirement to pay taxes. Here, there is an alternative to the contraceptive mandate. Pp. 45-49.

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Burwell_v_Hobby_Lobby_Stores_Inc_No_13354_and_13356_US_June_30_20


tech: Posted: July 11, 2014 11:08 p.m.

Unintended consequences indeed, chefgirl.

"More recently, the law of unintended consequences has come to be used as an adage or idiomatic warning that an intervention in a complex system tends to create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes.[7][8][9][10] Akin to Murphy's law, it is commonly used as a wry or humorous warning against the hubristic belief that humans can fully control the world around them."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences


stevehw: Posted: July 11, 2014 11:12 p.m.

"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs. "

Quite a few "weasel words" in there. *This* decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate. But the precedent is still there for *other* parts to be excepted. And no, they don't "necessarily" fail, but nothing in the decision *precludes* that line of argument.

BTW, yes, I did read the entire opinion and dissent. It opens the door to virtually *any* claim under RFRA for a corporation to claim a religious exemption.


stevehw: Posted: July 11, 2014 11:15 p.m.

Here's a good hypothetical: a corporation is owned by a Muslim family as a "closely-held" corporation. Their religious beliefs disallow alcohol use. They want an exception so that their company's employee insurance program does not cover anything related to alcohol...abuse treatment, treatment for diseases which might be caused by alcohol, etc.

Do they get the exemption? And by the court's logic, should the government pick up the tab for such coverage?


chico: Posted: July 11, 2014 6:09 a.m.

It's painfully clear that Obamacare can be incompatible with one's conscience or purpose in life.


ricketzz: Posted: July 11, 2014 7:11 a.m.

Letting people skip following the law because of an abstract concept akin to thinking gladiator movies are newsreels, is gone too far. This Court is the worst since Lincoln. This country was founded in part to escape the Tyranny of Religion. Madison is not pleased.


chefgirl358: Posted: July 11, 2014 7:19 a.m.

Yes, I agree with Steve and Ricketzz. Ricketzz, I do think this is the worst court ever. Of course, you can't please all the people all the time, but in the past few years this court has put out, in my opinion, some of the worst decisions in history and they're the final word...scary times. From campaign contributions, corporate entitlements, Aereo, abortion clinic buffer zones, etc., etc.


17trillion: Posted: July 11, 2014 8:51 a.m.

Chefgirl equates skin grafts with the morning after pill.

And there my friends, is why it's utterly useless to have an intelligent discussion about this issue.

I just checked and the morning after pill costs around 10 dollars SO EXCUSE ME IF I DON'T CRY A RIVER OVER YOUR PRECIOUS CIVIL RIGHTS BECAUSE YOU WANT YOUR BOSS TO PAY FOR YOUR ABORTION PILL BECAUSE YOU WERE TOO STUPID TO USE NORMAL BIRTH CONTROL WHICH COSTS 30 CENTS A DAY!

Are you really making the case that there are women out there that stupid? That's your argument? No please, it must be something else. That can't be it.

Worst court ever? Because one business objected to 4 out of 20 methods of birth control? 16 is not enough for you? Worst court ever? Scary times? Aereo is contributing to scary times? Worst decisions in history? You better get inside because the sky might fall on you.


CaptGene: Posted: July 11, 2014 9:13 a.m.

steve: "Their religious beliefs disallow alcohol use. They want an exception so that their company's employee insurance program does not cover anything related to alcohol...abuse treatment, treatment for diseases which might be caused by alcohol, etc"

That might be a workable analogy if HL was trying to get an exemption for anything related to sperm.

Although, since alcohol is often a factor in unwanted pregnancy, you may be on to something! --edited.


tech: Posted: July 11, 2014 9:48 a.m.

I'm not going to respond to every hypothetical, Steve. I'll make an exception in this case as an illustration and proceed to make a larger point about liberty.

Since alcoholism is medically considered a disease and therefore not voluntary, the closely-held Muslim family owned business, whether it's a sole proprietorship, LLC, Chapter S or C corp, non-profit or for profit, etc., is unlikely to prevail on that line of argument.

The quibble du jour aside, I've always wondered why people of any political persuasion are hell-bent (heh, heh) on enabling government coercion of private behavior because it happens to coincide with their belief system. They invite the 800 lb gorilla of government into their bedrooms and are subsequently astounded the sleeping arrangements aren't their preference.

As I alluded to with the unintended consequences comment above, government had no Constitutional authority to Federalize health care and subsequently issue mandates via administrative regulations that weren't in the original legislation. "As the Secretary shall deem necessary" is guaranteed to produce Constitutional overreach as government will always abuse power it is ceded. Invariably, they make a hash of complex societal behavior that impinges on the freedom of all citizens. --edited.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 11, 2014 10:15 a.m.

I heard a protester on the radio yesterday yelling "no womb, no voice" to another protester who happened to be male.

Just because my second chromosome is a little shorter than the first means I don't have a say in this debate?

I think I'll take my wallet and go home.....


17trillion: Posted: July 11, 2014 10:53 a.m.

Exactly! Since when do I not get a say in providing a benefit to you out of my own pocket? This is a microcosm of what is wrong with America. "I'm" entitled to your labor simply by existing. "I" have the right to dip my hand into your pocket and you better shut up about it.


philellis: Posted: July 11, 2014 11:34 a.m.

Since I only drink medicinally, can I get coverage under Obamacare?


chefgirl358: Posted: July 11, 2014 11:51 a.m.

17, what part of, the IUD and morning after pill is NOT AN ABORTIFACENT don't you understand? I also find it interesting you won't answer my question about breast reconstruction or other forms of "plastic surgery". Just because YOU might not see an issue with those things doesn't mean some pos employer wouldn't try to get all sorts of whacky exemptions whether they were really personal religious beliefs or not.

By the way, my birth control pills are about $220 for a 3 month supply, they cost me $30 with my insurance. Not every person can take just any old pill, they all have radically different effects and levels of hormones for specific purposes. Unless you are a woman who has actually taken different bcp's, an OB/GYN or someone with a little more knowledge about the actual medications and how they work, you really have no clue what you're talking about, and therein lies the heart of the issue.


AlwaysRight: Posted: July 11, 2014 12:18 p.m.

phil- only if I can drink with you. Medicinally, of course


therightstuff: Posted: July 11, 2014 12:18 p.m.

"""They invite the 800 lb gorilla of government into their bedrooms"""

Folks, we're just seeing the beginning of the 800 lb gorilla called Obamacare. Even Obama smelled massive trouble when he arbitrarily made over 20 changes to the law - without Congress - to postpone the worst parts of the bill's implementation until after he's out of office.

If a Republican wins the next presidential election when the sh*t hits the fan on Obamacare, we know who the Democrats and the mainstream media will blame. Obama's counting on it.


Unreal: Posted: July 11, 2014 12:58 p.m.

Most Christians consider conception not implantation as when it is a baby so these do in fact now constitute killing a life to us.

Also there ARE abortion pills used to stop pregnancy up to a month or so. Not just morning after pills. It is a series of pills one takes over days to kill the baby and cause you to miscarry.


tech: Posted: July 11, 2014 2:40 p.m.

Biological science recognizes that in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species.

Implantation in the womb is a secondary phase for nourishment and development to gestational maturation until birth.


chefgirl358: Posted: July 11, 2014 4:52 p.m.

Unreal, yes the abortion pill is called RU-486 and I do not believe it is one of the exempted medications. It is indeed an abortifacent.


ricketzz: Posted: July 12, 2014 7:31 a.m.

"Religion should never be superior to individual sovereignty."

Fight that right libertarians.


CaptGene: Posted: July 12, 2014 8:10 a.m.

Who are you quoting?


stevehw: Posted: July 13, 2014 11:19 p.m.

"I'm not going to respond to every hypothetical, Steve. I'll make an exception in this case as an illustration and proceed to make a larger point about liberty.

Since alcoholism is medically considered a disease and therefore not voluntary, the closely-held Muslim family owned business, whether it's a sole proprietorship, LLC, Chapter S or C corp, non-profit or for profit, etc., is unlikely to prevail on that line of argument."

My religion doesn't consider alcoholism a disease. My religion believes that if you are an alcoholic, it's because you are a sinner, against God, and you could choose to follow the righteous path of abstinence, but choose not to.

I need not prove to any court whether this is true or not...it is entirely sufficient, according to all legal doctrine (including the HL case) that I assert that I sincerely believe this. The courts may not question my sincerity. This is my religious belief, and forcing me to support others' sinfulness by paying for medical care for alcoholism or alcohol-related diseases violates my religious beliefs.

*Exactly* the same arguments that HL made.


ricketzz: Posted: July 13, 2014 7:09 a.m.

I am quoting Me. Let's hear the Libertarian argument against it.


tech: Posted: July 13, 2014 1:39 p.m.

"My religion doesn't consider alcoholism a disease. My religion believes that if you are an alcoholic, it's because you are a sinner, against God, and you could choose to follow the righteous path of abstinence, but choose not to."

"*Exactly* the same arguments that HL made."

Straw man. I've already advised I'm not going to debate your hypotheticals, Steve. Argue facts if you wish to have me engage.

Under RFRA, if a law substantially burdens someone’s religious practice, the government must prove that the burden is necessary to advance a compelling government interest. The government must also prove that its pursuit of that compelling interest is being undertaken by using the “least restrictive means.”

In its Hobby Lobby ruling, the high court found that the government had failed to demonstrate that the ACA’s contraception mandate was the least restrictive means (meaning least burdensome to religious practice) of achieving its goal of providing cost-free access to female employees to the full range of contraceptive methods.

Actual Hobby Lobby argument here:

http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/13-354-bs.pdf --edited.


tech: Posted: July 13, 2014 1:45 p.m.

"Religion should never be superior to individual sovereignty." - ricketzz

"I am quoting Me. Let's hear the Libertarian argument against it." - ricketzz

You'd first have to make a cogent argument instead of a non sequitur, ricketzz. How is the free exercise of an individual's religious belief not an aspect of individual sovereignty?


stevehw: Posted: July 16, 2014 4:48 a.m.

The reason you won't discuss hypotheticals is because you don't have an argument which holds up.

Court opinions discuss hypotheticals all the time, in analyzing the cases (just read the HL case opinions for some examples).

BTW, I've read the briefs *and* the opinions in the case, as I told you earlier.

But I think the hypothetical I posed clearly points out the error of the court's ruling...and it's only a matter of time before we see cases like this start working their way through the courts.

BTW, what do you think of the court's assertion that a less restrictive way of providing contraceptive care would be for the government to pay for it?


ricketzz: Posted: July 16, 2014 7:46 a.m.

Tech. My point exactly. Religion is inferior to the self. Thank-you.


ricketzz: Posted: July 16, 2014 7:51 a.m.

Your right to swing your fist only goes as far as my nose. Your right to establish religion should never inhibit my right to secure the blessings of Liberty.


tech: Posted: July 17, 2014 10:17 p.m.

"BTW, what do you think of the court's assertion that a less restrictive way of providing contraceptive care would be for the government to pay for it?" - stevehw

I thought it a means to avoid ruling on the entire mandate regime until the Feds (HHS) had devised a more uniform methodology that was RFRA compliant, i.e. one avoiding the delineation between for-profit and non-profit, an arbitrary standard.

FYI, I don't think the Feds are likely to prevail in the The Little Sisters and EBSA Form 700 case either.

HHS will likely have to find means to avoid any affirmative action by religiously conscientious objecting entities.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/analysis-the-little-sisters-case-and-ebsa-form-700/


tech: Posted: July 17, 2014 10:20 p.m.

No thanks required, ricketzz. You didn't make a point and avoided my incisive question.


stevehw: Posted: July 17, 2014 1:19 a.m.

"avoiding the delineation between for-profit and non-profit, an arbitrary standard."

As I understood it, the delineation was not between for-profit and non-profit, it was between for-profit and non-profit *religiously affiliated* organizations (church-run schools or hospitals, church-run charities, etc.).

That is, it made allowances for ***church-owned charities***.

Now, we have exceptions for regular businesses whose owners don't like some particular law.


stevehw: Posted: July 17, 2014 1:21 a.m.

"I thought it a means to avoid ruling on the entire mandate regime ..."

So suppose the government takes them up on their solution, and begins paying for contraceptive coverage for women whose companies won't allow the insurance plan to cover it.

Would that be acceptable?


tech: Posted: July 17, 2014 2:25 p.m.

The Feds were deciding what constituted a religious organization and ran afoul of the RFRA.

I don't know what will be acceptable to these organizations, Steve. My individual position isn't religious. Rather, it's based on a freedom and respect for life.

With the exception of the military, I don't support the Feds involvement in medical care.


ricketzz: Posted: July 18, 2014 7:54 a.m.

I am definitely a believer in a superior power, but that superior power is the synergy of a mob. I bow to no one.


tech: Posted: July 18, 2014 8:53 a.m.

You're an aging radical that missed out on the Jacobin Reign of Terror, ricketzz. Their excess led to an Emperor, followed by monarchs. Mobs are still a feature of the Fifth Republic; most recently attacking synagogues.

The Founders designed our Republic to defend individual rights against the tyranny of a mob.


stevehw: Posted: July 19, 2014 11:28 a.m.

I was asking if it would be acceptable to *you*.

The "feds" didn't decide what was a religious organization. HL themselves incorporated as a business. Until the HL case, for-profit corporations were never considered "religious organizations".

And the feds, as you call them, were not involved in medical *care*. They were regulating *insurance* and *corporations*, something well within their purview.

Mark my words, this case will be used precedent for some very extreme legal arguments by corporations to be excluded from all sorts of laws.


tech: Posted: July 19, 2014 12:16 p.m.

I already answered what would be acceptable to me, i.e. "With the exception of the military, I don't support the Feds involvement in medical care."

The Feds absolutely were deciding what was a religious organization or not, exempting some from specific medical procedures and drug mandates. Those mandates constitute medical care/services. Insurance is a funding mechanism and an organization may be self-insured or choose to have a 3rd party provide the coverage.

Examples of arbitrary Federal religious definitions:

• Catholic Churches - exempt
• Catholic Hospitals - non-exempt unless they serve only Catholics
• Catholic Universities - non-exempt

Your legal premise is flawed as individuals do not lose freedoms and rights because they organize into legal entities, associations or groups. Citizens United, Hobby Lobby and more decisions to come align with this fundamental principle.

Your conflation of medical services and insurance is an example of your confused thinking on this issue, Steve. You should reconsider your advocacy of forced adherence to values that may be inimical to millions of your fellow citizens.

Preemptively, examples of slavery, racism and other invidious discriminatory behaviors aren't relevant here. The issue is a religious and ethical view that revolves around respect for life. Abortifacients, abortion, euthanasia, etc. are just aspects of an underlying fundamental principle.

Due to your Catholic education background, I know you understand this intellectually. I recognize your disagreement with those principles and preference for others. That doesn't invalidate the freedom of your fellow citizens to act according to their principles. --edited.


stevehw: Posted: July 20, 2014 2:17 p.m.

And again I pose the hypothetical: muslim owners of a corporation seek exemption from the requirement that employee health insurance cover any diseases which *may* be related to or *may* be caused by alcohol.

Why wouldn't that argument succeed?

And you said it yourself...*individuals* do not lose freedoms and rights when organized into legal entities. But those legal entities, which are considered "artificial persons" under the law, have a *different* set of freedoms and rights (and obligations). Further, those legal entities are considered *under the law* as *separate from* the persons who formed them (thus protecting the persons from various liabilities, etc.).

HL and other religious conservatives want to have their cake and eat it, too...they want the protections of corporate law, but without various obligations (which other corporations must abide by) when it suits them.


stevehw: Posted: July 20, 2014 2:21 p.m.

"
Preemptively, examples of slavery, racism and other invidious discriminatory behaviors aren't relevant here. The issue is a religious and ethical view that revolves around respect for life. "

I completely disagree. The history of slavery, racism and other discriminations is rife with assertions that they are based on God's laws or the bible or what have you.

Clear examples are readily available...the judgement of the court below in Loving v Virginia is *nothing* but a statement that God wanted to keep the races separate.

Once we allow a religious exemption from generally-applicable laws in corporate jurisprudence, we've set the precedent for a whole slew of various exceptions.

They'll come...wait and see.


tech: Posted: July 20, 2014 3:53 p.m.

Corporations are formed mainly for business continuity, equity, liability and accounting purposes. Reversing your argument, are you asserting that because people form a corporation they should lose their freedoms and rights?

Example: Corporations are protected by the Fourth Amendment. The relevant question is, who is protected? It's clear that the people within the corporation, performing their assigned functions, are the protected entity. The corporation is a legal construct. It can't have it's rights violated nor can it be compelled to act. Only people that are associated with that corporation can be affected.

I understand why you want to expand the discussion beyond the instant case. My comments will be specific and relevant.

You overlooked my examples of how the Feds were deciding what constitutes a religious organization, a fact you disputed. Why? --edited.


ricketzz: Posted: July 30, 2014 10:15 a.m.

Corporations should have a finite lifetime. And a death penalty.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...