"Obamacare"

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Freedom of religion includes the freedom to be non-religious. An employer should not be able to get an exemption on a law only so they can insure that their employees are following the beliefs of a religion that those employees may not even believe in.

Again, this is so simple, I don't understand why you can't grasp it. The Hobby Lobby owners are not trying to "insure [sic] that their employees are following" the same religious beliefs of the owners. The owners just don't want to pay for something that they find immoral. The employees remain free to do whatever they want on their own dime. Why can't you understand that distinction?

I would be curious to see how much 4 methods of birth control move the needle on a group insurance premium. I'm betting it's pretty close to 0.

That is irrelevant. If it is part of the policy, and they're paying for the policy, then they're paying for the birth control coverage.

Oh, the horror.

You don't find it morally objectionable - neither do I - but I do think we should respect freedom of religion in this country. These owners are not kooks. They have deep-seated religious beliefs, beliefs that are shared, by the way, by millions of Americans. And they walk the walk. They don't operate on Sundays, and their starting wage is significantly higher than the minimum wage because they believe it is the right thing to do (something they were widely praised for in liberal circles just a few years ago before they threatened the sacred cows of Obamacare and free birth control).

If the US ever has to have another draft, are you ok with Christians and Jews being exempt?

I'm ok with exemptions for conscientious objectors, just like we had for prior drafts.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Freedom of religion includes the freedom to be non-religious. An employer should not be able to get an exemption on a law only so they can insure that their employees are following the beliefs of a religion that those employees may not even believe in.

Again, this is so simple, I don't understand why you can't grasp it. The Hobby Lobby owners are not trying to "insure [sic] that their employees are following" the same religious beliefs of the owners. The owners just don't want to pay for something that they find immoral. The employees remain free to do whatever they want on their own dime. Why can't you understand that distinction?

I would be curious to see how much 4 methods of birth control move the needle on a group insurance premium. I'm betting it's pretty close to 0.

That is irrelevant. If it is part of the policy, and they're paying for the policy, then they're paying for the birth control coverage.

Oh, the horror.

You don't find it morally objectionable - neither do I - but I do think we should respect freedom of religion in this country. These owners are not kooks. They have deep-seated religious beliefs, beliefs that are shared, by the way, by millions of Americans. And they walk the walk. They don't operate on Sundays, and their starting wage is significantly higher than the minimum wage because they believe it is the right thing to do (something they were widely praised for in liberal circles just a few years ago before they threatened the sacred cows of Obamacare and free birth control).

If the US ever has to have another draft, are you ok with Christians and Jews being exempt?

I'm ok with exemptions for conscientious objectors, just like we had for prior drafts.

I don't think that worked out very well for most of the people who tried it.

[Mrs. Gooch]

birth control is preventative healthcare

So is abstinence and monogamy and euthanasia

Are you saying that monogamy prevents pregnancy? I don't think it does.

[Cartierfor3]

Freedom of religion includes the freedom to be non-religious. An employer should not be able to get an exemption on a law only so they can insure that their employees are following the beliefs of a religion that those employees may not even believe in.

Again, this is so simple, I don't understand why you can't grasp it. The Hobby Lobby owners are not trying to "insure [sic] that their employees are following" the same religious beliefs of the owners. The owners just don't want to pay for something that they find immoral. The employees remain free to do whatever they want on their own dime. Why can't you understand that distinction?

I would be curious to see how much 4 methods of birth control move the needle on a group insurance premium. I'm betting it's pretty close to 0.

That is irrelevant. If it is part of the policy, and they're paying for the policy, then they're paying for the birth control coverage.

Oh, the horror.

You don't find it morally objectionable - neither do I - but I do think we should respect freedom of religion in this country. These owners are not kooks. They have deep-seated religious beliefs, beliefs that are shared, by the way, by millions of Americans. And they walk the walk. They don't operate on Sundays, and their starting wage is significantly higher than the minimum wage because they believe it is the right thing to do (something they were widely praised for in liberal circles just a few years ago before they threatened the sacred cows of Obamacare and free birth control).

If the US ever has to have another draft, are you ok with Christians and Jews being exempt?

Absolutely yes.

[michigancat]

I don't believe my taxes should pay for such a large military (cuz religion). Should I get, say, a 10% break on my taxes?

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258

[Cartierfor3]

I don't believe my taxes should pay for such a large military (cuz religion). Should I get, say, a 10% break on my taxes?

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258

Which religion is this specifically?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I don't believe my taxes should pay for such a large military (cuz religion). Should I get, say, a 10% break on my taxes?

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258

Sadly, the courts have ruled (repeatedly, I think) that you cannot object to paying taxes on the basis of religion. Sorry. Freedom of religion does not trump all government power - the government just has to meet a very high burden of establishing that there is no less restrictive way to further a compelling government interest before it can infringe on your religious liberty.

[michigancat]

I don't believe my taxes should pay for such a large military (cuz religion). Should I get, say, a 10% break on my taxes?

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258

Which religion is this specifically?

my strongly held one

[Cartierfor3]

I don't believe my taxes should pay for such a large military (cuz religion). Should I get, say, a 10% break on my taxes?

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258

Which religion is this specifically?

my strongly held one

I would say render to Caesar in that case. However I get your point that laws infringe on religious liberty often. Its a bummer.

[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.

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.

If we're talking about abortion here (which according to your admitting privileges and surgical center certifications examples, we are), then my point still stands. The so called "war on women" is a war on abortion. 

Nobody takes issue with women's centers doing cancer screenings. 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

If we're talking about abortion here (which according to your admitting privileges and surgical center certifications examples, we are), then my point still stands. The so called "war on women" is a war on abortion. 

Nobody takes issue with women's centers doing cancer screenings.

Shhh! Libtards don't use the A Word when talking about the War on Women. The correct term is "women's health." The WoW apparently does not pertain to the millions of girls that are aborted. It's all so confusing.

[nicname]

I wouldn't say that not offering female employees insurance that covers certain types of bc, getting into their personal lives. I would say the government mandating that a business/ business owner offer certain types of bc, getting into their personal lives.

[Tobias]

i would think that with nicname we can ignore the fed government and focus on whether the state of kansas should provide these services, to which the answer would be no.  they can go to a diff state if they expect this, correct?  not disagreeing necessarily, just condensing

[ednksu]

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.

please read and attempt to understand the points made and the cases noted.  If you have questions ill answer them.

I understand your points just fine, to the extent that stupidity can be understood. You are arguing that Hobby Lobby, by allowing business owners to assert freedom of religion (and that's not exactly what it holds, but let's not quibble over specifics), allows the business owners to trample on the "rights" of their employees.

The question is, what "rights" are being trampled upon? And here is where your argument falls apart, as I illustrated above. This is not, as you argue, a matter of equal protection. Obamacare does not require free male contraception. Nor is there a right to "free" contraception.

The employees' right to access to birth control is the same as it has been since Griswold. If you want, you can trot your happy ass down to the pharmacy and buy it. Just don't demand that your employer pay for it. There is no such right.

Its clear that you don't understand the law and what is going on here.  Additionally its clear that all of my comments have gone right over your head.  If you went to school at K-State and took any Pol Sci or Hist of Con Law classes please return to campus immediately and apologize to Dr. Fliter, Dr. Franke, or Dr. Williams. 

I'll make this very simple:
Hobby lobby said the business has a religious belief because of its owners beliefs.
Alito's opinion said that their beliefs, even though they are scientifically inaccurate, were enough justification to rule over the rights of people, simply because they believed they caused abortions. 
ACA turned your legal formalist logic on its head, and didn't say men must have coverage for BC for all.  And like previous decisions, the law was written neutrally so it couldn't discriminate based on sex.  See notes which you ducked before.

The result is that we live in an era now where corps have 1st amendment rights of speech and now religion in addition to 14th amendment equal protection rights.  That is one of the most heinous things which you people have done to our country.

[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.

If we're talking about abortion here (which according to your admitting privileges and surgical center certifications examples, we are), then my point still stands. The so called "war on women" is a war on abortion. 

Nobody takes issue with women's centers doing cancer screenings.

I would encourage you to look at places like Planned Parenthood having funding blocked even for clinics which don't provide abortions.  Most importantly, look at the history of female health issues in this country.  From various issues being "preexisting conditions" for insurance coverage, laws limiting the distribution and access to birth control, controversies invented for Plan B, and an overall climate preventing women from totally controlling their sexual lives, its pretty clear that the radical right has a war against women. And that doesn't even get into "legitimate rape", slut shaming, and a general failure to prosecute sexual assaults. 

[ednksu]

I'll ask the radical right again: Are we comfortable with a company run by Jehovah Witness to block blood transfusions, Christians Scientists to block vaccinations, or Scientologists to block psychiatric care?  Because the reality create by Hobby Lobby is that the owner's beliefs are transferred to the company and imposed on you and your rights.  Even if those beliefs are fundamentally wrong according to the medical science, they come between you and your doctor.  And keep in mind that the SCOTUS recently appended their decision so that this cases isn't limited to just 4 types of BC.  They have given guidance to the lower courts to review previous challenges to ALL coverage (hint, we're back to that war on women thing).  So yeah, what that stare decisis do.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I'll ask the radical right again: Are we comfortable with a company run by Jehovah Witness to block blood transfusions, Christians Scientists to block vaccinations, or Scientologists to block psychiatric care?  Because the reality create by Hobby Lobby is that the owner's beliefs are transferred to the company and imposed on you and your rights.  Even if those beliefs are fundamentally wrong according to the medical science, they come between you and your doctor.  And keep in mind that the SCOTUS recently appended their decision so that this cases isn't limited to just 4 types of BC.  They have given guidance to the lower courts to review previous challenges to ALL coverage (hint, we're back to that war on women thing).  So yeah, what that stare decisis do.

This has already been asked and answered. The answer is yes, I'm fine with an employer choosing not to provide insurance for any of these things, or not providing insurance at all. If you don't like it, you don't have to work there. See 13th Amendment. Or, you can get your own insurance coverage if you don't like the policy offered by your employer.

Its clear that you don't understand the law and what is going on here.  Additionally its clear that all of my comments have gone right over your head.  If you went to school at K-State and took any Pol Sci or Hist of Con Law classes please return to campus immediately and apologize to Dr. Fliter, Dr. Franke, or Dr. Williams. 

Oh good lord....  Looks like we've got a law school versus pre-law smackdown!

[ednksu]

I'll ask the radical right again: Are we comfortable with a company run by Jehovah Witness to block blood transfusions, Christians Scientists to block vaccinations, or Scientologists to block psychiatric care?  Because the reality create by Hobby Lobby is that the owner's beliefs are transferred to the company and imposed on you and your rights.  Even if those beliefs are fundamentally wrong according to the medical science, they come between you and your doctor.  And keep in mind that the SCOTUS recently appended their decision so that this cases isn't limited to just 4 types of BC.  They have given guidance to the lower courts to review previous challenges to ALL coverage (hint, we're back to that war on women thing).  So yeah, what that stare decisis do.

This has already been asked and answered. The answer is yes, I'm fine with an employer choosing not to provide insurance for any of these things, or not providing insurance at all. If you don't like it, you don't have to work there. See 13th Amendment. Or, you can get your own insurance coverage if you don't like the policy offered by your employer.

Its clear that you don't understand the law and what is going on here.  Additionally its clear that all of my comments have gone right over your head.  If you went to school at K-State and took any Pol Sci or Hist of Con Law classes please return to campus immediately and apologize to Dr. Fliter, Dr. Franke, or Dr. Williams. 

Oh good lord....  Looks like we've got a law school versus pre-law smackdown!

oh god youve actually gone to law school?!?!  Please tell me it was at Liberty University and not a legitimate school.  Otherwise you're going to have to add more to your list of people to apologize to (I also assume at this point you didnt go to k-state, or at least recently, since you didnt recognize any of those names or cant read.)

[Stevesie60]

Hey guys, did you see edn's awesome burn? K-S-U CAN'T READ!!!!

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I'm glad you're back in the pit edna, very entertaining.

[star seed 7]

I'm glad you're back in the pit edna, very entertaining.

It's terrible

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I'm glad you're back in the pit edna, very entertaining.

It's terrible

It' like having rachel maddow right here on this blog. 

[ednksu]

I'm glad you're back in the pit edna, very entertaining.

It's terrible

HEY! 

[ednksu]

Oh Johnny! 

Wanna do [serious] tags so we can have fun and talk about stuff.

[Asteriskhead]

I don't really think that Drs. Franke, Fliter and Williams would appreciate having their names drug into this.