All is quiet...

[_MeDotOrg]

95 % of women on birth control have only had about 5 sexual partners....but they were all at once

Beyond fueling the fires of mysogeny, there are some interesting aspects to the court's decision.

The case is referred to as the 'Hobby Lobby' case, but there was another co-plaintiff: Consestoga Wood Specialties Corporation, which is owned by Mennonites.

Now the Mennonites are a pacifist sect, so why can't they bring a suit objecting to their tax dollars going towards the military? Taking the concept of 'corporate personhood' to its logical extreme, why can't Conestoga claim 'conscientious objector' status?

After all, "Corporations are people, too."

[Guest]

I have no objection at all to health plans that include birth control and family planning. Yet, at the same time, I realize that for most people, the cost of contraception is not so high that they could not easily afford to pay for it, even if their health plan did not cover it. As for the morning after pill, if someone (especially one who is single) chooses to have unprotected sex with someone, I don't see why they should not be expected to pay for that pill themselves.

[_Gunnar]

Again, keep bringing these gems. First attack science and now women. Of course all women who want birth control (even those who need it for medical reasons) must be "sluts"!

Yeah, I'd be hiding behind a pseudonym too if I shared your bigotry.

I hear you! Just when I think subby could not get any more stupidly outrageous or offensive, he surprises me and sinks to a new low, even for him!

[_just me]

I have no objection at all to health plans that include birth control and family planning. Yet, at the same time, I realize that for most people, the cost of contraception is not so high that they could not easily afford to pay for it, even if their health plan did not cover it. As for the morning after pill, if someone (especially one who is single) chooses to have unprotected sex with someone, I don't see why they should not be expected to pay for that pill themselves.

The IUD costs $1000 to have installed (so I've read). It is a very convenient method of BC and has a very low failure rate. A thousand bucks is a lot of money for many people.

I don't see why single women should be treated any differently than married women. Healthcare is healthcare. Plan B can be used by women who experienced condom failure and sexual assault, not just regular ol' unprotected sex.

[_Gunnar]

I have no objection at all to health plans that include birth control and family planning. Yet, at the same time, I realize that for most people, the cost of contraception is not so high that they could not easily afford to pay for it, even if their health plan did not cover it. As for the morning after pill, if someone (especially one who is single) chooses to have unprotected sex with someone, I don't see why they should not be expected to pay for that pill themselves.

The IUD costs $1000 to have installed (so I've read). It is a very convenient method of BC and has a very low failure rate. A thousand bucks is a lot of money for many people.

I don't see why single women should be treated any differently than married women. Healthcare is healthcare. Plan B can be used by women who experienced condom failure and sexual assault, not just regular ol' unprotected sex.

I was thinking of contraception pills in particular and remembering how little they cost us when we used them early in our marriage. We never used IUDs, so I didn't realize how expensive it was to have one installed. My bad! I can certainly see why someone would want to have that covered in their health plan if that is determined to be their best and safest option. I also agree that rape victims should not be held responsible for the resulting pregnancy.

How much does a "Plan B" pill cost? Do they cost enough to cause significant economic distress for those who need them? Also, I question whether it is healthy and safe to use as the primary or sole means of long term birth control if one has a very active sex life, especially a single person who is not committed to a monogamous relationship.

[_just me]

I was thinking of contraception pills in particular and remembering how little they cost us when we used them early in our marriage. We never used IUDs, so I didn't realize how expensive it was to have one installed. My bad! I can certainly see why someone would want to have that covered in their health plan if that is determined to be their best and safest option. I also agree that rape victims should not be held responsible for the resulting pregnancy.

How much does a "Plan B" pill cost? Do they cost enough to cause significant economic distress for those who need them? Also, I question whether it is healthy and safe to use as the primary or sole means of long term birth control if one has a very active sex life, especially a single person who is not committed to a monogamous relationship.

Plan B (or similar) can cost between $10 and $70. Obviously, a $10-20 copay is doable for many women. When you start looking at $70, though, there are women who just can't swing that. Emergency contraception is not meant to be used every time you have sex, clearly. It causes changes to menstruation. It also isn't 100% effective. I have a friend who used it and it didn't keep her from getting pregnant. It's called an "emergency contraceptive" for a reason.

[_ajax18]

I don't see how it's contraception if you're inhibiting a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. Conception has already occurred at that point.

[_subgenius]

95 % of women on birth control have only had about 5 sexual partners....but they were all at once

Beyond fueling the fires of mysogeny, there are some interesting aspects to the court's decision.

The case is referred to as the 'Hobby Lobby' case, but there was another co-plaintiff: Consestoga Wood Specialties Corporation, which is owned by Mennonites.

Now the Mennonites are a pacifist sect, so why can't they bring a suit objecting to their tax dollars going towards the military? Taking the concept of 'corporate personhood' to its logical extreme, why can't Conestoga claim 'conscientious objector' status?

After all, "Corporations are people, too."

I believe the the Supreme Court decision spoke to your rather ill-aimed comparison here.
the Supreme Court noted that the government was already making compromises on this matter and therefore had already conceded the requirements of RFRA.
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/ne ... /11764171/

This is where posts like yours and JustMe's reveal their true "led-around-by-the-nose" nature.

"The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

By already allowing for some businesses to "opt-out" of the birth control mandate the government failed to demonstrate that it was using the "least restrictive" means to further what must be its governmental interest of keeping Sandra Fluke's legs in the air.

So, for your Mennonite example to ring true, the government would have to be offering an similar "opting-out" for military use of tax dollars. Currently i am not aware of such a similar condition - so the logic of your post is wrong...and like the ACA, misguided.

Ironically it was the ACA's own policy that ultimately permitted Hobby Lobby to win. You, claim to want equal treatment...but more and more, the exclusivity of the Democrats is revealed.

[_MeDotOrg]

95 % of women on birth control have only had about 5 sexual partners....but they were all at once

Beyond fueling the fires of mysogeny, there are some interesting aspects to the court's decision.

The case is referred to as the 'Hobby Lobby' case, but there was another co-plaintiff: Consestoga Wood Specialties Corporation, which is owned by Mennonites.

Now the Mennonites are a pacifist sect, so why can't they bring a suit objecting to their tax dollars going towards the military? Taking the concept of 'corporate personhood' to its logical extreme, why can't Conestoga claim 'conscientious objector' status?

After all, "Corporations are people, too."

I believe the the Supreme Court decision spoke to your rather ill-aimed comparison here.
the Supreme Court noted that the government was already making compromises on this matter and therefore had already conceded the requirements of RFRA.
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/ne ... /11764171/

This is where posts like yours and JustMe's reveal their true "led-around-by-the-nose" nature.

"The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

By already allowing for some businesses to "opt-out" of the birth control mandate the government failed to demonstrate that it was using the "least restrictive" means to further what must be its governmental interest of keeping Sandra Fluke's legs in the air.

So, for your Mennonite example to ring true, the government would have to be offering an similar "opting-out" for military use of tax dollars. Currently i am not aware of such a similar condition - so the logic of your post is wrong...and like the ACA, misguided.

Ironically it was the ACA's own policy that ultimately permitted Hobby Lobby to win. You, claim to want equal treatment...but more and more, the exclusivity of the Democrats is revealed.

If 'corporations are people too' the shouldn't there be a 'reasonable accommodation' for other beliefs other than health care? Just because the government hasn't previously offered an accommodation for corporations for conscientious objector status, how can the government deny a 'reasonable accommodation'? What if the government would only use their tax dollars for non-military purposes? Should corporations be required to give to make accommodations for employees who are called up for military duty?

Two days after The Hobby Lobby Case, the Supreme Court (6 members) signed an injunction that allows Wheaton College 'greater flexibility' in complying with ACA.

The problem? In order to opt-out, institutions must sign a form, and some institutions are saying that signing the form itself makes them complicit in acts which are against their religious beliefs, so they are refusing to sign the form.

So, if there's ever a draft again, could a conscientious objector fail to register with Selective Service because to do so would violate his religious beliefs? That's not the way it worked in the past.

It seems like the Court is making more accommodations for institutional religious beliefs than individual religious beliefs.

[_subgenius]

If 'corporations are people too' the shouldn't there be a 'reasonable accommodation' for other beliefs other than health care? Just because the government hasn't previously offered an accommodation for corporations for conscientious objector status, how can the government deny a 'reasonable accommodation'? What if the government would only use their tax dollars for non-military purposes? Should corporations be required to give to make accommodations for employees who are called up for military duty?

Two days after The Hobby Lobby Case, the Supreme Court (6 members) signed an injunction that allows Wheaton College 'greater flexibility' in complying with ACA.

The problem? In order to opt-out, institutions must sign a form, and some institutions are saying that signing the form itself makes them complicit in acts which are against their religious beliefs, so they are refusing to sign the form.

So, if there's ever a draft again, could a conscientious objector fail to register with Selective Service because to do so would violate his religious beliefs? That's not the way it worked in the past.

It seems like the Court is making more accommodations for institutional religious beliefs than individual religious beliefs.

I think you need to resolve the reality of the the Supreme Court decision, because it was actually quite narrow and contrary to yours, and Ginsburg's, assertion it is not a "slippery slope".
The only reason Hobby Lobby won was because of the 2 conditions expressed in the RFRA....and yes, the Supreme Court equates a company to a person in that respect. But your erroneous extrapolations are unsupported by the actual ruling (i.e. tax money for war).
In other words, a substantial burden being placed upon one's religious beliefs is only permissible if it is the least restrictive means...and the government, the ACA, had already exhibited by its own policy that their burden on Hobby Lobby was not the least restrictive...the ACA was implementing least restrictive means elsewhere.

So, simply having a religious objection was not sufficient for the the Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby....the government may only impose upon religion "substantially" when that imposition supports a compelling interest of the govt and....an important and, that imposition is applied by the least restrictive means available....the ACA was not using the least restrictive means available since exemptions were allowed under other circumstances.