"Obamacare"

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I really enjoy the openness about believing corps are people.  I mean you dont get that kind of legal formalist honesty anymore, mostly becauae it died out in the american public with child labor and 70 hour work weeks to provide bread and water and it isnt the early 20th century.

Jesus, this is pathetic.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I really enjoy the openness about believing corps are people.  I mean you dont get that kind of legal formalist honesty anymore, mostly becauae it died out in the american public with child labor and 70 hour work weeks to provide bread and water and it isnt the early 20th century.

Jesus, this is pathetic.

Yes, but he's just parroting a common libtard talking point without really understanding its implications. Corporations are a legal entity composed of, and held by, people. Were it not for this ruling, the government would be able to force people to violate their religious beliefs just to maintain their corporate status (or pay penalties, etc) which is a clear violation of the First Anendment and the RFRA.

[Cartierfor3]

Its like the can feel your war on women froth through my computer.   

You lose the argument when you use this phrase FYI. Having a discussion about what should or should not be required for a business to offer their employees is hardly a war, friend. Perhaps you ought to personally consider what constitutes a war, and what an individual whom you accuse of waging war is actually doing.

[ednksu]

Its like the can feel your war on women froth through my computer.   

You lose the argument when you use this phrase FYI. Having a discussion about what should or should not be required for a business to offer their employees is hardly a war, friend. Perhaps you ought to personally consider what constitutes a war, and what an individual whom you accuse of waging war is actually doing.

Attacking all facets of Women's health care, particularly their access to it isn't a war? 
lol another supporter of the pre existing condition of 'vagina'?

[Cartierfor3]

Its like the can feel your war on women froth through my computer.   

You lose the argument when you use this phrase FYI. Having a discussion about what should or should not be required for a business to offer their employees is hardly a war, friend. Perhaps you ought to personally consider what constitutes a war, and what an individual whom you accuse of waging war is actually doing.

Attacking all facets of Women's health care, particularly their access to it isn't a war? 
lol another supporter of the pre existing condition of 'vagina'?

Kinda remembering why I quit posting in this thread. If you want to have a grown up discussion I'm down for that, but if you're agenda is to insult, I'll be content to let you do so with someone else.

[ednksu]

I really enjoy the openness about believing corps are people.  I mean you dont get that kind of legal formalist honesty anymore, mostly becauae it died out in the american public with child labor and 70 hour work weeks to provide bread and water and it isnt the early 20th century.

Jesus, this is pathetic.

Yes, but he's just parroting a common libtard talking point without really understanding its implications. Corporations are a legal entity composed of, and held by, people. Were it not for this ruling, the government would be able to force people to violate their religious beliefs just to maintain their corporate status (or pay penalties, etc) which is a clear violation of the First Anendment and the RFRA.

Hey dumbass,
Please read the history of where your beliefs come from, because right now its painfully obvious you're parroting Foxnews/neocon talking points. 
Additionally, and I really hate to add to your work load of reading books without burning them, why don't you read up on why corps aren't people and their entire legal existence is designed to shield owners form liabilities of running said business.  So either corporations are people and we can put them and their owners to death (think recalls and failure to notify being akin to manslaughter) or we get back to rational law and say corps are not people, don't have any first amendment rights, like our founders wanted, and get over imposing your views on women.

[Spracne]

The number on strawpeople on display is incredible!

[CNS]

I am not for forcing owners of biz to do something that goes against their beliefs. 

The market will sort it out, imo.  Go work elsewhere.

That said, the radio story I heard on the ruling recently said that the ruling specifically said they didn't have to pay for the Plan B pill or UTI's, but that they didn't object paying for other forms of birth control. 

It's not the all or nothing ruling that many reports are generalizing it as, who cares. 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

If I were a woman, I'd be highly skeptical of the party lead by known serial rapist and misogynist Bill Clinton running to my rescue.

Hey its cool he coaxed a BJ out of a 24 year old girl during her work day. But the 'pubs, trying to prevent legislative mandates requiring  coverage for readily available and inexpensive BC, now that's repellent.

[ednksu]

I am not for forcing owners of biz to do something that goes against their beliefs. 

The market will sort it out, imo.  Go work elsewhere.

That said, the radio story I heard on the ruling recently said that the ruling specifically said they didn't have to pay for the Plan B pill or UTI's, but that they didn't object paying for other forms of birth control. 

It's not the all or nothing ruling that many reports are generalizing it as, who cares.

You seem pretty with it CNS, so I'm surprised to hear you say this.  You should go read up on how the SCOTUS has appended its decision (the day after the ruling in fact) to guide the lower courts to re-examine their previous rulings on all BCs.  So in essence, they ruled and allowed for certain provisions and then the next day instructed lower courts to shut off those other avenues, ergo threatening all BC no matter what the intention of use is. 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I really enjoy the openness about believing corps are people.  I mean you dont get that kind of legal formalist honesty anymore, mostly becauae it died out in the american public with child labor and 70 hour work weeks to provide bread and water and it isnt the early 20th century.

Jesus, this is pathetic.

Yes, but he's just parroting a common libtard talking point without really understanding its implications. Corporations are a legal entity composed of, and held by, people. Were it not for this ruling, the government would be able to force people to violate their religious beliefs just to maintain their corporate status (or pay penalties, etc) which is a clear violation of the First Anendment and the RFRA.

Hey dumbass,
Please read the history of where your beliefs come from, because right now its painfully obvious you're parroting Foxnews/neocon talking points. 
Additionally, and I really hate to add to your work load of reading books without burning them, why don't you read up on why corps aren't people and their entire legal existence is designed to shield owners form liabilities of running said business.  So either corporations are people and we can put them and their owners to death (think recalls and failure to notify being akin to manslaughter) or we get back to rational law and say corps are not people, don't have any first amendment rights, like our founders wanted, and get over imposing your views on women.

First, "neocon" is a foreign policy label. You sound like a dumbass when you don't use words correctly. Second, I'm "parroting" my legal training, the Supreme Court majority opinion, and common sense. I'll take those "sources" over whatever lefty blog or MSNBC (but I repeat myself) you're perusing.

[ednksu]

I really enjoy the openness about believing corps are people.  I mean you dont get that kind of legal formalist honesty anymore, mostly becauae it died out in the american public with child labor and 70 hour work weeks to provide bread and water and it isnt the early 20th century.

Jesus, this is pathetic.

Yes, but he's just parroting a common libtard talking point without really understanding its implications. Corporations are a legal entity composed of, and held by, people. Were it not for this ruling, the government would be able to force people to violate their religious beliefs just to maintain their corporate status (or pay penalties, etc) which is a clear violation of the First Anendment and the RFRA.

Hey dumbass,
Please read the history of where your beliefs come from, because right now its painfully obvious you're parroting Foxnews/neocon talking points. 
Additionally, and I really hate to add to your work load of reading books without burning them, why don't you read up on why corps aren't people and their entire legal existence is designed to shield owners form liabilities of running said business.  So either corporations are people and we can put them and their owners to death (think recalls and failure to notify being akin to manslaughter) or we get back to rational law and say corps are not people, don't have any first amendment rights, like our founders wanted, and get over imposing your views on women.

First, "neocon" is a foreign policy label. You sound like a dumbass when you don't use words correctly. Second, I'm "parroting" my legal training, the Supreme Court majority opinion, and common sense. I'll take those "sources" over whatever lefty blog or MSNBC (but I repeat myself) you're perusing.

How many times can you seriously say something on the internet made you laugh out loud!!!

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

nobody is limiting the access of birth control, any woman can buy it from any source they like.

Also, why would half the women in the US wage a war on themselves? Or, are they just waging a war against liberal women?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I really enjoy the openness about believing corps are people.  I mean you dont get that kind of legal formalist honesty anymore, mostly becauae it died out in the american public with child labor and 70 hour work weeks to provide bread and water and it isnt the early 20th century.

Jesus, this is pathetic.

Yes, but he's just parroting a common libtard talking point without really understanding its implications. Corporations are a legal entity composed of, and held by, people. Were it not for this ruling, the government would be able to force people to violate their religious beliefs just to maintain their corporate status (or pay penalties, etc) which is a clear violation of the First Anendment and the RFRA.

Hey dumbass,
Please read the history of where your beliefs come from, because right now its painfully obvious you're parroting Foxnews/neocon talking points. 
Additionally, and I really hate to add to your work load of reading books without burning them, why don't you read up on why corps aren't people and their entire legal existence is designed to shield owners form liabilities of running said business.  So either corporations are people and we can put them and their owners to death (think recalls and failure to notify being akin to manslaughter) or we get back to rational law and say corps are not people, don't have any first amendment rights, like our founders wanted, and get over imposing your views on women.

First, "neocon" is a foreign policy label. You sound like a dumbass when you don't use words correctly. Second, I'm "parroting" my legal training, the Supreme Court majority opinion, and common sense. I'll take those "sources" over whatever lefty blog or MSNBC (but I repeat myself) you're perusing.

How many times can you seriously say something on the internet made you laugh out loud!!!

Happy to cheer you up, and nice tap out. I was trying to say, as politely as possible, "I'm smarter than you, I know what I'm talking about, you don't, so quit being a dumbass."

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

nobody is limiting the access of birth control, any woman can buy it from any source they like.

Also, why would half the women in the US wage a war on themselves? Or, are they just waging a war against liberal women?

No, no, no, it's the 5 old, male SC Justices that are waging the war on women! 

[ednksu]

I really enjoy the openness about believing corps are people.  I mean you dont get that kind of legal formalist honesty anymore, mostly becauae it died out in the american public with child labor and 70 hour work weeks to provide bread and water and it isnt the early 20th century.

Jesus, this is pathetic.

Yes, but he's just parroting a common libtard talking point without really understanding its implications. Corporations are a legal entity composed of, and held by, people. Were it not for this ruling, the government would be able to force people to violate their religious beliefs just to maintain their corporate status (or pay penalties, etc) which is a clear violation of the First Anendment and the RFRA.

Hey dumbass,
Please read the history of where your beliefs come from, because right now its painfully obvious you're parroting Foxnews/neocon talking points. 
Additionally, and I really hate to add to your work load of reading books without burning them, why don't you read up on why corps aren't people and their entire legal existence is designed to shield owners form liabilities of running said business.  So either corporations are people and we can put them and their owners to death (think recalls and failure to notify being akin to manslaughter) or we get back to rational law and say corps are not people, don't have any first amendment rights, like our founders wanted, and get over imposing your views on women.

First, "neocon" is a foreign policy label. You sound like a dumbass when you don't use words correctly. Second, I'm "parroting" my legal training, the Supreme Court majority opinion, and common sense. I'll take those "sources" over whatever lefty blog or MSNBC (but I repeat myself) you're perusing.

How many times can you seriously say something on the internet made you laugh out loud!!!

Happy to cheer you up, and nice tap out. I was trying to say, as politely as possible, "I'm smarter than you, I know what I'm talking about, you don't, so quit being a dumbass."

sorry to put you in that kind of mood. But I was just gonna say your juvenile understanding Supreme Court decisions shows you obviously have nothing beyond an undergrad level of legal training.  I would be shocked if you want to any kind of reputable school for post grad work with the way you spew these repudiated legal formalist arguments.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I really wouldn't care about this at all if the law didn't mandate that individuals purchase insurance that includes birth control. Giving a business an exemption on religious grounds when their employees aren't required to follow their religion just doesn't make sense to me. My religion says I'm not supposed to kill people. That didn't give me an exemption from filling out a draft card.

[ednksu]

I really wouldn't care about this at all if the law didn't mandate that individuals purchase insurance that includes birth control. Giving a business an exemption on religious grounds when their employees aren't required to follow their religion just doesn't make sense to me. My religion says I'm not supposed to kill people. That didn't give me an exemption from filling out a draft card.

whats your beef with birth control?  If its because of religious issues woild you have the same objections to Jehovah witness and blood transfusions or scientology and psychological care?

[DQ12]

Attacking all facets of Women's health care, particularly their access to it isn't a war? 
lol another supporter of the pre existing condition of 'vagina'?

All facets, huh?  It seems to me the only thing "under attack" is contraception.  Could be wrong though. 

[ednksu]

Attacking all facets of Women's health care, particularly their access to it isn't a war? 
lol another supporter of the pre existing condition of 'vagina'?

All facets, huh?  It seems to me the only thing "under attack" is contraception.  Could be wrong though.

not keeping up on the slashing of funding for women's centers in red states?  How about horribly restrictive standards like admitting privileges and surgical center certifications.  Or guest the general issue that birth control has been something radical right has been attempting to wrest control from women for decades with little success.

[ednksu]

I really wouldn't care about this at all if the law didn't mandate that individuals purchase insurance that includes birth control. Giving a business an exemption on religious grounds when their employees aren't required to follow their religion just doesn't make sense to me. My religion says I'm not supposed to kill people. That didn't give me an exemption from filling out a draft card.

Also if your issue is that it requires men to have BC coverage its because the issue is being framed by neo-cons that way.  Instead turn it around and look at it as a civil rights issue where you are preventing an insurance company from discriminating against women on the basis of sex.  So in effect you the ACA doesn't mandate men have BC coverage, its mandates that plans can't prohibit companies from discriminating against women.  All the more reason why Hobby Lobby is bullshit, my companies first amendment rights which were just invented by old white guys trumps your natural rights as a human, seems fair doesn't it?


Additionally legal formalists, like K-S-U, do stupid crap like Rehnquist did G.E. v Gilbert and say that pregnancy exclusions written into things like disability coverage because its a "physical condition" not sexual discrimination because the law was written gender neutrally.  So the BC coverage mandate takes this kind of logic and turns it on its head to provide coverage. 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Ed - if you're trolling, I salute you. You really had me going. If you're serious, you just jumped the shark. Or a whole SeaWorld of them.

Also if your issue is that it requires men to have BC coverage its because the issue is being framed by neo-cons that way.  Instead turn it around and look at it as a civil rights issue where you are preventing an insurance company from discriminating against women on the basis of sex.  So in effect you the ACA doesn't mandate men have BC coverage, its mandates that plans can't prohibit companies from discriminating against women.

Wait - are you saying Obamacare requires free condoms for men?! How has the entire universe overlooked this salient fact?

All the more reason why Hobby Lobby is bullshit, my companies first amendment rights which were just invented by old white guys trumps your natural rights as a human, seems fair doesn't it?

Ah yes, the "natural right" to free birth control provided by your employer. I believe that was discussed at length in Federalist Papers No. 9.

[star seed 7]

All Healthcare should be provided free of charge to citizens, then all this ridiculousness would be moot

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Is birth control really healthcare? Seems like a slippery slope. Pretty soon the government will be paying for deoderant, kale, tylenol, bean sprouts and nasal strips.

At some point major medical will became prepaid toiletries and health food.

[star seed 7]

birth control is preventative healthcare