Hobby Lobby Ruling

If medical Plan B terminates pregnancy then so does a woman's Period. Next thing you know the varke types will be trying to stop women from their monthly period haha Then there are the things event women have no control over in most cases ie miscarriages and still borns

Quote:

Originally posted by Aardvarks

Only the plan B birth control will not be covered by Hobby Lobby.

Wrong. It's Plan B, Ella, ParaGard and Mirena.

Quote:

Originally posted by Aardvarks

Plan B birth control terminates a pregnancy, which many people deem as aborting a fetus.

Cool. It's almost as if you didn't read the earlier posts, including this one, in which I linked to this article written by an OB/GYN physician:

Quote:

...
2) Legislating a belief over science. The 4 methods of contraception that Hobby Lobby takes issue with are Plan B, Ella, and the two IUDs, ParaGard and Mirena. We call these methods contraceptives not abortifacients because in science, unlike the Supreme Court, we like facts and facts tell us that these methods do not cause abortion (which is by definition the disruption of a pregnancy that is already implanted, no matter how early). But even if we take the evangelical definition of pregnancy (the wandering fertilized egg) we know for sure Plan B has no effect because it is biochemically impossible for a progestin in that dose (or probably any dose) to prevent pregnancy by any definition, scientific or otherwise. The bulk of the medical evidence suggests that the two IUDs in the United States do not prevent a fertilized egg from implanting and the same goes for Ella. We can’t say with 100% accuracy because there is no easily accessible test to tell us that a fertilized egg is wandering aimlessly around the upper reproductive tract and so the information comes from indirect methods like studying the mechanisms of action in lab and animal models and studies that have looked at the time of the cycle that the method is used. Science is fact and apparently facts don’t matter to the Supreme Court. Good to know.

3) A slippery slope for other contraceptives. If you believe the untruth that Plan B (a progestin) causes abortion (by any definition, evangelical or scientific) then all hormonal contraceptives should be excluded for sexually active women as they all contain progestins. Quick start pill taking (starting the birth control pill the day you get them versus waiting for your period) is very common and improves compliance, however, if you share the magical belief that progestins could prevent a fertilized egg from implanting then all oral contraceptives have to go, otherwise every time a woman starts her pills mid cycle a baby might die (never mind the possibility of escape ovulation).

I wouldn't have had to link to those old posts and quote the excerpt that unequivocally refutes the factually incorrect nonsense you posted had you just done us all the courteous of actually reading through the thread and informing yourself. Which is why I posted this.

Ya know, Christain as I am, I align myself politically much more with Libertarians than any other party. I got no interest in getting inside F's or SP's, or any other womb (the kind of garbage I've heard time and time again on this thread). I'd be first to admit that if pregnancy as we know it were up to men, we'd have gone extinct immediately after we were created, formed, evolved, devolved or big-banged (as you may see it) into existence. But we don't.

Fact is, if we were all sitting in the same restaurant, unknown to each other, and a gunman started doing what gunmen do, instead of scrambling for the door, I'd first tend to my own family's safety, and then, for as long as I was physically able to perform and mentally able to function, I'd tend to the safety of those I don't know. Given the tools and opportunity, I'd kill the gunman without a second thought, because that person is trying to harm others, of innocence, unable, incabable or unwilling to defend themselves. And I'd willingly put myself at risk to do so. That's just the cut of cloth I come from.

So, faced with making MY CHOICE of tucking tail and running or standing firm, I guess that same cut of cloth is what makes me say I'll defend that "Another", "unborn baby", "fetus", "human being" (take your least offensive choice of the above), from those that want to harm it. Once that baby is safe, it's all over for me.

So, if that makes me intolerant, controlling, unreasonable, wacko, extremist, religious, oppressive, asshole (continue the list here)..... in the eyes of the perpetrator. Welp, I reckon those are badges I'll wear with a fair degree of pride, considering the source from which the labels come. I'd still put my life on the line for ya, even if I knew what ya thought of me. I suppose I'll sleep OK on that tonight.

CYA round the bend.

PS:

EL, regarding a post some pages back you made regarding my comments on name calling, civility, et al... Yes sir. Duly noted. Appreciated. Finger not pointed your direction.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

I'd first tend to my own family's safety, and then, for as long as....

I can appreciate this, I think most would tend to their family first, and then some would help others. So look at it this way, and I'm not saying this is the case with all abortions, but it is with some. If a woman already has children, and is a single mother or low income, and she becomes pregnant...isn't getting an abortion, in a way looking after her family? If she's a single mom, she can't take any time away from work, she can't risk having complications during pregnancy. She's looking out for her family. Like I said, it isn't the case in all abortions, but I'm sure there are a lot of women in this situation.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...
We can argue all day and I'm sure we'll never agree, but by medical definition Plan B does not terminate a pregnancy.

But again, that is not the point of this thread, and its not the main reason why the HL ruling upsets me. What upsets me is that:
1) Hobby Lobby is not person and therefor can not have a religious conviction
2) These forms of birth control are accepted under the ACA
3) Employees have paid for access to these drugs via their healthcare plan
4) You can't just change the law for yourself if you don't agree with it.

#2 on your list is the reason for the law suit which the Supreme Court of the US upheld. Obama promised that Plan B et al would not be included in the ACA. It was NOT in the law that was passed by Congress. HHS (the regulatory are of ACA) back doored it in as a regulation. Which address your #4 comment, you can't just change a law you don't agree with.

Quote:

Originally posted by Aardvarks

...

#2 on your list is the reason for the law suit which the Supreme Court of the US upheld. Obama promised that Plan B et al would not be included in the ACA. It was NOT in the law that was passed by Congress. HHS (the regulatory are of ACA) back doored it in as a regulation. Which address your #4 comment, you can't just change a law you don't agree with.

Regardless of how it became law, and I have no idea if what you're saying is true or not, it is law, so my point is valid.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

Regardless of how it became law, and I have no idea if what you're saying is true or not, ....

What he's saying is sort of true, but highly misleading. It would be highly impractical and unwieldy for Congress to legislate all the details of a health care program. For example, although some of what is contained in Medicare is rooted in the Medicare Act, most of the policies are contained in the Manual, which is constantly updated by CMMS and by policies put out by the insurance companies which are contracted to administer the program.

In a similar fashion, most legislators are fully aware that Congress could not possibly create and update all of the details that go into something like this. So the ACA gave the Secretary of HHS the power to administer the program. The ACA was passed in March of 2010 and the contraceptive mandate was included in August of 2011. However, as early as 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that Companies which provided prescription coverage to their members but excluded birth control were violating the Civil Rights Act.

It is probably worth noting that more than half of the states had their own contraceptive mandates before the Federal mandate existed. But most of those states allowed the insurance company to pass the cost on to the members.

As with Medicare, Congress always has the ability (if it chooses) to pass a law that would override the contraception mandate. However, such a law would be highly unlikely to pass in the near future and voting for it would be politically difficult for most members of Congress.

WBW is the best site on the net lots of thnx to the creators

exocet paid attention in his political science courses

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

Ya know, Christain as I am, I align myself politically much more with Libertarians than any other party. I got no interest in getting inside F's or SP's, or any other womb (the kind of garbage I've heard time and time again on this thread). I'd be first to admit that if pregnancy as we know it were up to men, we'd have gone extinct immediately after we were created, formed, evolved, devolved or big-banged (as you may see it) into existence. But we don't. Fact is, if we were all sitting in the same restaurant, unknown to each other, and a gunman started doing what gunmen do, instead of scrambling for the door, I'd first tend to my own family's safety, and then, for as long as I was physically able to perform and mentally able to function, I'd tend to the safety of those I don't know. Given the tools and opportunity, I'd kill the gunman without a second thought, because that person is trying to harm others, of innocence, unable, incabable or unwilling to defend themselves. And I'd willingly put myself at risk to do so. That's just the cut of cloth I come from. So, faced with making MY CHOICE of tucking tail and running or standing firm, I guess that same cut of cloth is what makes me say I'll defend that "Another", "unborn baby", "fetus", "human being" (take your least offensive choice of the above), from those that want to harm it. Once that baby is safe, it's all over for me. So, if that makes me intolerant, controlling, unreasonable, wacko, extremist, religious, oppressive, asshole (continue the list here)..... in the eyes of the perpetrator. Welp, I reckon those are badges I'll wear with a fair degree of pride, considering the source from which the labels come. I'd still put my life on the line for ya, even if I knew what ya thought of me. I suppose I'll sleep OK on that tonight. CYA round the bend.

Do you put this much effort in protecting the Children of the world? How about "illegal" immigrant children? Starving children in Africa and elsewhere? Do you protest the way they are being treated? Really not the Children's fault when it comes to their situation. Amazing how fired up people get about fetuses/embryos but ignore the plight of children in their own cites/countries/world. Right now there are screams from anti abortionist to send the immigrant children back the the horrible situations from whence they came.. I don't think it teaches that in my Christian Bible. The Abortion issue is just a political football. I am opposed to late term abortions btw I am more for preventing pregnancy for those not wanting children ie Plan B ETC Most of the poverty in the world is caused by unplanned pregnancies along with moron power hungry militias and corrupt governments

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

Wrong. It's Plan B, Ella, ParaGard and Mirena.

...

Cool. It's almost as if you didn't read the earlier posts, including [Link], in which I linked to [Link]written by an OB/GYN physician:
...

I wouldn't have had to link to those old posts and quote the excerpt that unequivocally refutes the factually incorrect nonsense you posted had you just done us all the courteous of actually reading through the thread and informing yourself. Which is why I posted [Link].

OMG!! You mean this case went ALL the way to the Supreme Court of the United States on a false premise?? But, there you go, you supplied a link to a blog that say other wise. Boy oh boy are a lot of people are going to have egg on their face tomorrow. I mean the American Medical Association, Federal Drug Administration, HHS and the World Health Organization all list the Plan B contraceptives as an aborting drug, but you went and found a blog that says otherwise.

Kudos to you my friend. I mean for god sake even the Obama Administration acknowledges these drugs abort a fetus ( by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus) as listed on page 38 of the Supreme Court decision. Boy is Chief Justice Roberts going to be pissed after they spent so much time listing links to medical web sites on their opinion.

I'll sure to forward your link to all the major news sites right away, we should be hearing something very very soon. Don't worry, when Wolf Blitzer calls I'll be sure to give you credit for this link.

Thanks again.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

Regardless of how it became law, and I have no idea if what you're saying is true or not, it is law, so my point is valid.

Spend the hour to read the entire Supreme Court decision. They address everything that was discussed in this forum. Your point may be valid to you, but it is not based on fact.

Quote:

Originally posted by Aardvarks

...


I mean the American Medical Association, Federal Drug Administration, HHS and the World Health Organization all list the Plan B contraceptives as an aborting drug, but you went and found a blog that says otherwise.

Kudos to you my friend. I mean for god sake even the Obama Administration acknowledges these drugs abort a fetus ( by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus) as listed on page 38 of the Supreme Court decision. Boy is Chief Justice Roberts going to be pissed after they spent so much time listing links to medical web sites on their opinion.

.

1. The opinion was written by Justice Alito, not by Chief Justice Roberts. Roberts concurred.
2. The Alito opinion does not take any position on whether or not the methods in question are abortifacients. It consistently states that the Greens, the Hahns and others believe them to be abortifacients. The legal issue is the beliefs of the appellants and the Court was reluctant to issue a judgement on the medical facts. It issued a judgment based on the religious beliefs in question.
3. I don't believe that the AMA maintains a list of abortifacient drugs. The AMA does refer to RU 486 as an abortifacient, but RU 486 is not "Plan B". ACOG only refers to Plan B as a contraceptive and does not use the word abortifacient. I am unaware of any statements by "The Obama Administration" or the FDA that list Plan B as an abortifacient. The FDA package insert for Plan B states only "Plan B One-Step is a progestin-only emergency contraceptive indicated for
prevention of pregnancy "

I do not deny that in your personal beliefs, Plan B is an abortifacient. And although its primary mechanism of action is to prevent fertilization, I do not deny that in some cases Plan B may prevent implantation of an already fertilized egg. You certainly have a right to your point of view. You also have a right to your dripping sarcasm. But the debate should be based on fact.

Plan B doesn't terminate a pregnancy, and page 38 of the opinion (not by Roberts, btw) doesn't say that it does.

Terminating a pregnancy and possibly preventing an embryo from attaching to complete the impregnation process are very different. The court consistently held that it was HL's beliefs, rather than medical knowledge, that was relevant.

Quote:

Originally posted by exocet

...

1. The opinion was written by Justice Alito, not by Chief Justice Roberts. Roberts concurred.
2. The Alito opinion does not take any position on whether or not the methods in question are abortifacients. It consistently states that the Greens, the Hahns and others believe them to be abortifacients. The legal issue is the beliefs of the appellants and the Court was reluctant to issue a judgement on the medical facts. It issued a judgment based on the religious beliefs in question.
3. I don't believe that the AMA maintains a list of abortifacient drugs. The AMA does refer to RU 486 as an abortifacient, but RU 486 is not "Plan B". ACOG only refers to Plan B as a contraceptive and does not use the word abortifacient. I am unaware of any statements by "The Obama Administration" or the FDA that list Plan B as an abortifacient. The FDA package insert for Plan B states only "Plan B One-Step is a progestin-only emergency contraceptive indicated for
prevention of pregnancy "

I do not deny that in your personal beliefs, Plan B is an abortifacient. And although its primary mechanism of action is to prevent fertilization, I do not deny that in some cases Plan B may prevent implantation of an already fertilized egg. You certainly have a right to your point of view. You also have a right to your dripping sarcasm. But the debate should be based on fact.

1. Read my post again. I never said Roberts wrote the decision, I only referenced Roberts with the links supplied in the decision. We don't know who inserted the links, I had to use someone's name. Thanks for nit picking on a meaningless detail.
2. I never said it did, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. They said it only matters that the defendants did.

Some people believe in a higher being and some don't, I don't care. As I stated in my very first post, this case had nothing to do with contraceptives. It had to do with the SCOTUS reaffirming that the federal government has constitutional limits, which makes the left bat shit crazy.

I never said I believe in a deity, so you don't know my personal beliefs. Your are making assumptions without fact. There is a lot of that going around.

This case did not put any limits on contraceptives, it did not make any illegal. These 4 contraceptive are available to anyone 17 years of age or old without a prescription. As we all know in the real world this make them easy to get since all a 13 year old has to do is get a friend to buy them. This drug is easier to obtain then crack on any street corner in Detroit.

I'm not against this drug being readily available.

Quote:

Originally posted by kylecook

Plan B doesn't terminate a pregnancy, and page 38 of the opinion (not by Roberts, btw) doesn't say that it does.

Terminating a pregnancy and possibly preventing an embryo from attaching to complete the impregnation process are very different. The court consistently held that it was HL's beliefs, rather than medical knowledge, that was relevant.

Page 38 states ...."as HHS acknowledges, see Brief for HHS in No. 13–354, at 9, n. 4,may result in the destruction of an embryo". Reading is a skill best learned by doing.

Read my post again. I never said Roberts wrote the decision, I only referenced Roberts with the links supplied in the decision. We don't know who inserted the links, I had to use someone's name. Thanks for nit picking on a meaningless detail.

Thanks for wasting everyone's time with your post.

Quote:

Originally posted by Aardvarks

...

Spend the hour to read the entire Supreme Court decision. They address everything that was discussed in this forum. Your point may be valid to you, but it is not based on fact.

The Supreme Court decision has nothing to do with how the law was passed in the first place.

Quote:

Originally posted by Aardvarks

...

This case did not put any limits on contraceptives, it did not make any illegal.

Maybe not, but it did change how some people can access them. IF they are covered by ACA, then they should be covered by all who access ACA. Would it be ok with you if some employees weren't able to access diabetic medication though ACA because their company had a spiritual belief against insulin?

Quote:

Originally posted by Aardvarks

...

Page 38 states ...."as HHS acknowledges, see Brief for HHS in No. 13–354, at 9, n. 4,may result in the destruction of an embryo". Reading is a skill best learned by doing.

Read my post again. I never said Roberts wrote the decision, I only referenced Roberts with the links supplied in the decision. We don't know who inserted the links, I had to use someone's name. Thanks for nit picking on a meaningless detail.

Thanks for wasting everyone's time with your post.

Sure, you only implied that Roberts wrote the opinion. Inserting his name into your post was entirely meaningless if you didn't mean to say that he wrote the opinion. There's no reason to reference Roberts instead of the true author. .

Your statement that "Reading is a skill best learned by doing" is entirely ironic, at best, especially after how your statement is wrong was already explained.

First of all, "may" doesn't mean that it does, and as EL pointed out, the IUDs just prevent fertilization. But the bigger one, as already stated, is that preventing an embryo from attaching and completing the pregnancy process is NOT the same as aborting a fetus. Unless you really think that an embryo and a fetus are the same thing. Which they aren't. You know, since it doesn't become a fetus until after the embryonic stage.

I don't know how else to connect the dots for you. You seem hell bent on denying how a pregnancy works. You take a premise of preventing an embryo from attaching to the uterine wall and then say "I mean for god sake even the Obama Administration acknowledges these drugs abort a fetus." Which is just flatly incorrect. But you know that's incorrect because you go on to say that this fantasy abortion occurs "by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus." Again, unless you really think that an embryo and a fetus are the same thing and the medical community just uses these two terms interchangeably. Which (of course) explains why everyone calls a baby in the third trimester an embryo instead of a fetus.

So again, the opinion doesn't say that Plan B terminates a pregnancy. It uses sensationalized language to say that Plan B "may" prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus, which would have then made a woman pregnant upon attachment. And the HHS doesn't say these BC methods cause abortions. You can say that you think preventing an embryo from attaching to the wall and becoming a fetus is the same as an abortion (even though that doesn't fit the accepted medical definition of an abortion or the definition of abortion forwarded by Hobby Lobby), but in doing that, you're taking the same position as Hobby Lobby and saying that science is wrong because you believe the embryo is life.