Hobby Lobby Ruling

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

...

As I said before, actions have consequences, and defending the defenseless is something I see as a far more noble cause than defending an adult that doesn't want to face those consequences.

Yeah, you're so noble...wanting to save lives of unborn children only to tell them 20 years later "get a job" if they're unemployed, and want to deny them any sort of government assistance because "he who shall not work, shall not eat".

Don't give me that crap about wanting to save lives, and just admit that the reason you're against abortion is because your precious book says its wrong.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dronetek

STAY OUT OF MY BODY, but pay for my contraception!

Can it get any dumber?

The two shouldn't be related at all. So because a company pays for part of a prescription on healthcare, they get to decide if I get to use it or not? Thats like me saying to you, well yes, technically you are covered for this flu medication, but we really don't believe you should use it. Just because they pay for part of your healthcare, doesn't mean they should have a say in your body.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

SP. I made assumptions because this is the first time you've actually answered any of my questions. Or at least attempted.

Maybe you could try to answer some of mine then. Namely:
"So I assume that if you got sick and needed treatment...say something like MS, and you needed tysabri treatment (similar to cancer chemo) you'd be willing to pay for the $150,000 per year treatment?" All you answered is that you tend to be responsible. Well...I don't care how responsible you are, unless you're one of a handful of people in the US, you're not going to be able to afford $150K a year on MS drugs. So...are you accepting he healthcare, or are you going to refuse it?

Also, you never answered my question about who gets to decide what a legit religion is, and if their claim against ACA would be legit.

Quote:

Originally posted by BMA

Your "argument" actually bolsters my case. Up until a certain point in time, abortion was not legal. Then enough people liked the idea that it became legal. Now some are starting to wonder. Some may/are challenge(ing) that. The law may change. It's back to that see-saw I have mentioned.... civil society... the way things work. Regardless of political persuasions, we all have the right to challenge.

Thats the thing...nobody is challenging the law, pro choice support is higher now than when the law was passed in 1969. The only ones that want to challenge it is the Conservative party. Even people that vote Conservative support pro choice, Canada has a pro choice support number in the 80% range. The only reason its being brought up is because the elected Conservatives are flexing their personal beliefs rather than the beliefs of the people they're supposed to be representing.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

...

Exactly. As I see it, and understand it, this case was only about those drugs for which there remains some legitimate debate surrounding the question "when does life begin". I don't see how this is an unreasonable request for anyone that finds abortion to be murder of a living being with a right to life.

My only opposition to this whole issue is when anyone spews the rhetoric that it's about "controlling" a woman's body and the "religious right" is on the warpath. It's not a legitimate claim.

I disagree. This case is not about the debate about when life begins. The majority opinion doesn't come close to saying that. Rather, they go out of their way to say that at issue is hobby lobby's beliefs, and that whether those beliefs comport with valid science are irrelevant.

Which just brings us back to my first point about how it's shocking that supporters of the majority in the 5-4 decision call this an abortion issue. It explicitly is not.

I don't believe anyone is arguing that life begins prior to conception. Since these methods of both control that were at issue in the litigation stop fertilization from occurring (just like condoms, spermicide, etc.), there is no legitimate debate about when life begins in this case.

Hobby lobby, as far as a corporation (closely held or not) is capable of believing anything, believes that terminating a pregnancy after a fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterine wall is tantamount to abortion. But there is no debate that these four methods of birth control work prior to attachment.

It's fine if you don't think it's an unreasonable request to allow members of a faith to make a religious objection based on a lack of knowledge about how the female body and pregnancy in particular works. But then we are at Ginsburg's dissent where she correctly points out that we are venturing into a figurative minefield. Now any sincerely held religious belief can be used to carve out any number of exemptions from the law, and it apparently doesn't even matter if the beliefs are in complete contradiction with reality. We aren't dealing with a real issue if faith here (e.g., I believe god exists, or I believe abortion goes against my Christian beliefs), but are dealing with an issue of science where we aren't even to the gray area yet.

SP, your first post on this page went straight to my point about liberals not being able to have a real conversation about an issue. That does tend to be what happens when an issue is reduced to fact. It turns into a one sided attack. But I'll give you one thing, YOU ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!! I do believe it's far more noble to help a child you don't know and will likely never meet that is powerless to defend itself than it is to help someone that has the power to help themselves. The kid isn't dealing with it's own decisions or actions.

And what do you mean "precious book"?

I did answer your question about what happens if I got sick. I answered it plainly and succinctly with very few words. Maybe you skipped over it in your emotion.

I also answered your question about who decides. But rather than make you go look that one up, I'll repeat myself. That's what courts are for.

If I missed others, it wasn't intentional. You do tend to throw a lot of questions together, and many of them seem rhetorical, ie: you think they prove your point or your using them in a malicious manner. If I see what I think is real question you're looking to have answered, I have tried to do so. Whereas you have largely skipped over my questions and went straight to picking on statements you don't like.

I find it hard to have a conversation that way, and I don't really have any interest in a shouting match. That's why I walked away once already.

I missed the part in our Constitution that stated there had to be a certain number of people that disagreed with something before they could challenge it. When abortion was first legalized, the vast majority was against it. By your own logic, it should have never passed under those circumstances.

Had a minority not stood up the the King, we'd all have British accents by now.... or speaking German.

For the third time now... it's a see-saw, and it's how the system works, finds an equilibrium, or conducts social tests. Sometimes we discover something didn't work well, and go back to the old ways. It's been that way for a long time.

Quote:

Originally posted by kylecook

...
But there is no debate that these four methods of birth control work prior to attachment.

.

I will plead a degree of ignorance here. I just saved that small portion of your text to clarify...

Are you suggesting that these drugs work BEFORE FERTILIZATION, or between the stage of fertilization and uterine attachment?

I'm not catholic, and don't know what the church teaches. I know the Catholic church is officially against any form of birth control, but it's largely ignored by members.

I thought these drugs worked AFTER fertilization, at which point I can understand their argument, if one believes that life begins the moment of conception. Or am I misusing that word? I would have considered conception and fertilization to be one and the same, yet a portion of your text implied that conception doesn't occur until attachment. Despite the medically correct definition of conception, I think HL's challenge to the law is quite legitimate if those drugs work after fertilization and they consider fertilization to be point where life begins.

I asked you point blank...twice. If you got sick and needed meds, would you pay for meds if they were $150,000 a year, or would you use healthcare. Your only answer was, "I try to prepare for such"

Now, you have two choices, you can say no, I can't/won't pay $150K a year, so I'll use healthcare. Or, you can say, yes I'd pay for them. If the answer is yes...congrats on being super wealthy, and why the hell are you complaining about a couple thousand a year in ACA costs that may help someone that greatly needs help. My friend that actually has faced this situation, and who does have MS and a good job, but not good enough to be able to pay $150K/yr thanks you.

Quote:

Originally posted by BMA

I missed the part in our Constitution that stated there had to be a certain number of people that disagreed with something before they could challenge it. When abortion was first legalized, the vast majority was against it. By your own logic, it should have never passed under those circumstances.

Thats not what my logic is saying, what I'm saying, and what I've said, is that there are all kinds of laws in place in all countries that most people don't agree with. I'm sure most people don't agree with speed limits, or being forced to wear a seatbelt, or would like to carry weapons...or whatever. However part of government is to pass laws that protect and look after people so we don't have total anarchy. There are plenty of laws that I don't agree with, but I understand their need, and in some cases, if enough people oppose a law, then perhaps they can get it changed. The Hobby Lobby ruling didn't do that. 1 guy didn't like the law, so he got it changed...for 1 person. Thats not how laws work. Yes, he's set a bit of a precedent, and others may challenge ACA, but right now...the law has been changed to satisfy a grand total of 1 person. And if you want to be technical...the Plaintiff in this case, isn't even a person...its a company, so really the law was only changed to satisfy 1 company. However, that ruling effects the 15,000 or so women that work for Hobby Lobby. When Roe v Wade was ruled upon it didn't grant the right to have an abortion to 1 woman, it granted it to all women in the US.

Quote:

Originally posted by BMA

Had a minority not stood up the the King, we'd all have British accents by now.

sure, a minority started these fights, but they certainly didn't win them.

SP, I did answer your question. I believe I said "Yes. Or die."

I'll answer no more until you go back to my surgar-daddy questions, which came first, and also tell me what a "precious book" is.

The HL decision is now the law of the land. You are wrong about your assumptions. At least that's my understanding that this decision is not limited to one sole plaintiff. If that's the case, then it's an injustice to all that would follow. BUT... it in no way should diminish the fact that you, I, anyone reading this that lives in a free society, have the right to make such challenges, and win if our argument is strong enough. To wish for anything else could be your own undoing one day.



I don't understand this point at all. Quote: "sure, a minority started these fights, but they certainly didn't win them."



But until you get around to answering my questions, I will tell you this much. You yack about "choice", and pick on what I think is noble for defending the unborn child. None of the yacking makes a bit of sense or logic.

Here is an abortion video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdj7zKGiDNw It's pretty straight forward and not political. It is a video of the actual procedure, with an over-voice description. Watch it if you have the stomach for it.

This isn't an argument about choice. I don't personally know anyone that wants to restrict your right to make choices about your life that do not affect others.

It isn't an issue about religion. I don't know if The Bible, the Koran, the Book of Morman, etc. define when life begins.

It's an issue of when does life begin.

Murder is illegal in every country, regardless of their religion or lack thereof. If this child is living, then it is murder, and if he is not alive, then it's not murder. To me, that is the sole argument. It's why partial birth abortion has been outlawed. It seemed pretty black and white to the courts, and any reasonably intelligent and honest individual, that pulling a baby out of the womb feet first, then sucking it's brain out before the head left the vag, and before cutting the cord, was indeed murdering a viable living being. I suppose there are a very few that believe life does not begin until the umbilical cord is severed and a baby takes its first unassisted breath of air. I can respect that individual for their opinion and decision to fight to defend it, as long as they respect mine and my right to fight against them.

Now the argument continues, as we attempt to define further that one issue: When does life begin?

If you turn it into an issue of "choice", then I should have the choice to kill you if, and solely if, I simply choose to do it. Anything other than that removes the issue of choice and turns it into an issue of murder.

It really is that simple. I believe life starts at conception and find abortion to be murder. If you don't believe that life starts at conception, then there is a legitimate issue to discuss here.

If you believe life starts at some other point, then when, and why do you believe what you believe?

If you cannot provide scientific proof of when life actually begins, and your answer is akin to "Well I think..." then I choose to er on the side of caution and defend the potential DEFENSELESS life against a murderer. Regardless of the baby's status in the womb, and wherever that timeline is proven to be located, I will continue to fight against abortion beyond the point of "life begins at...". Until scientific proof exists to define that point in time, I will er in caution and choose conception.

If you believe life starts at conception, and it really is about having the choice to murder a helpless child, then we don't have an issue to discuss, we have a fight.

The fight is legitimate, at any stage in the argument, until a defined "Life begins here" proof is made. That is what's currently going on, not just in the US, but countries around the world, as some people fight for their belief in a "life starts here" location, or the woman's right to make a convenient decision, while others fight for what they believe is a living human being and the right of those that cannot defend themselves to continue living.

Our courts are made up of people. And here in the US, the courts have been used to promote personal, political and ideological agenda for quite some time. We refer to them as "activist judges". The definition of an activist judge, at its most basic core, is any judge that does not use the Constitution as their sole guideline for making a decision. And by that definition, virtually every judge could be considered an activist in one small way or another. No matter how hard one tries, it is ultimately impossible to completely remove one's bias, life experience and beliefs from their decision making process. There is no doubt that we have court justices that will vote against any effort to restrict anything less that total abortion on demand. We have some that will vote to outlaw abortion of any kind. And we have many that fall between those two place. Since people die and justices change, this debate will continue in our courts, most likely, long after you and I are both gone from this world.

All either one of us can do is look inward to ourselves and make the choice to stand on the side we believe is right. If that's what you do, even though I fight you, I can respect you. If you choose to stand on the side opposite of what your heart really tells you, then I have no respect for you at all.

Does that really make me so unreasonable?

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

1 guy didn't like the law, so he got it changed...for 1 person. Thats not how laws work. Yes, he's set a bit of a precedent, and others may challenge ACA, but right now...the law has been changed to satisfy a grand total of 1 person. And if you want to be technical...the Plaintiff in this case, isn't even a person...its a company, so really the law was only changed to satisfy 1 company. However, that ruling effects the 15,000 or so women that work for Hobby Lobby. When Roe v Wade was ruled upon it didn't grant the right to have an abortion to 1 woman, it granted it to all women in the US.

One small correction - the ruling involved two cases, one was Hobby Lobby and the other was Conestoga Wood. And the ruling applies not to one company but to all "closely held" companies (think of it as privately held companies).

I domt even know what "sugar daddy" question you're talking about. There was one about motorcycle helmets I believe, but I told you I didn't understand what you were talking about.

Regardless if the HL law changed the law of the land or not, it still doesn't apply to all people. Companies now have the right to pick and choose what they're allowing to be covered by healthcare...so depending on who you work for the law may or not apply to you...so it did not change the law for everyone, and again...that is not how laws should work. Either everyone has the same law or they don't. You can't have groups petitioning to have laws changed for only that group of people. I'm done debating this, if you can't understand that law either applies to all, or to none, then I don't know what else to say to convince you.

As for when life begins, I know I'll never change your mind on it, but just so you know where I stand, I believe it is around the point in which a fetus could possibly survive without the aid of its mother....so perhaps somewhere around the 25 week mark. At conception there is not much more than an egg, is it life??? Technically yes, in as much as any human cell is life, is it a life form? No. Having said that, I don't particularly believe in late term abortions (typically after 20 weeks) as some premature babies as young as 21 weeks have survived. The only case in which I would support it, if there was a medical need for it.
And no, I don't need to watch an abortion, I don't even know why anyone would film that other than to use it as a tool to try and scare women in to not having an abortion. It's sensationalism at it absolute worst and the people who filmed it and distribute it should be ashamed of themselves. To film something like that...something so emotionally taxing for the woman, and to use it as a scare tactic is disgusting. Look...contrary to what you believe, I'm not some heartless baby killer. If I were ever in a position where I felt I needed to have an abortion, it would be the hardest most emotional decision of my life. It would be heart wrenching and deeply personal, and yes, would mourn for the loss of a potential life. But I also know that rationally, if I were unable to look after myself and that child, that it was the correct option.

My response of "sure, a minority started these fights, but they certainly didn't win them" was in reply to your statement that America would still have a king or be speaking German if it wasn't for a minority group of people. What I meant by that is that opposition to the king of England may have started off as a minority, but in order to become an independent nation, Americans had to come together and show their displeasure. It wasn't one guy saying, "I have a problem with the king, change the system".

Lastly, you know what I meant by precious book...I meant the bible.

Quote:

Originally posted by exocet

...

One small correction - the ruling involved two cases, one was Hobby Lobby and the other was Conestoga Wood. And the ruling applies not to one company but to all "closely held" companies (think of it as privately held companies).

True, Conestoga Wood also won their case. So I guess it applies to two companies. I don't believe it applies to ALL closely held companies, it's my understanding that they still have to prove that the company has a religious based problem with paying for emergency contraception. Regardless of whether or not it applies to all closely held companies or not, it doesn't apply to all Americans, and again, that's not how laws work.

BMA, please tell me how anyone could go bankrupt 3 times between 2009-2012 ( if I got that right).

Gotta know.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

True, Conestoga Wood also won their case. So I guess it applies to two companies. I don't believe it applies to ALL closely held companies, it's my understanding that they still have to prove that the company has a religious based problem with paying for emergency contraception. Regardless of whether or not it applies to all closely held companies or not, it doesn't apply to all Americans, and again, that's not how laws work.

True and not true. The ruling says that closely held companies do have rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). That this applies to all privately held companies is not in doubt. The Court's opinion was that the ACA requirements failed to meet the requirement for using the "least restrictive means" to accomplish the goal in the cases of Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood and Autocam (thereby violating their rights under RFRA). The opinion does state (in one of its final paragraphs) that the Court should not be in the business of evaluating the sincerity of the religious claims of the companies. But you are correct in assuming that private companies which assert such beliefs could be challenged on this point. But you would be incorrect in assuming that any and all such closely held corporations would need to sue or prove their beliefs in court. The mechanism would work in the opposite direction. A company which asserted religious beliefs in this matter would fail to provide the benefits, and the HHS would sue the company if HHS felt that the claim was in doubt.

Someone in an earlier posting talked about religious beliefs against other health benefits, but the opinion specifically says that it is only being applied to the contraceptive benefit.

Quote:

Originally posted by F1098

BMA, please tell me how anyone could go bankrupt 3 times between 2009-2012 ( if I got that right).

Gotta know.

You missed an important word. "Nearly..." As within 1 week of having line of credit maximized, and not enough cash for payroll, when suddenly something came in at the absolute last minute. I didn't sleep for almost two weeks once at the thought of walking in the door and saying "Well folks, it's been one helluva ride, but the ride is over."

Twice they were contracts that weren't even on our radar screen, were bid and awarded in less than a week, and that almost never happens. Let alone twice at the exact moment I needed it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

I domt even know what "sugar daddy" question you're talking about. There was one about motorcycle helmets I believe, but I told you I didn't understand what you were talking about.

I was using a different scenario, one that's a little closer to home, yet completely unrelated, to see where you drew the line of responsibility, as a means of arguing one of your points that was being made more on emotion than rationale. It might need to be read a couple times to comprehend it, but I don't know how else to ask it without the detail provided. I doubt you read it more than once, and if that's incorrect, then let me apologize for my inability to be clear.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

Regardless if the HL law changed the law of the land or not, it still doesn't apply to all people. Companies now have the right to pick and choose what they're allowing to be covered by healthcare...so depending on who you work for the law may or not apply to you...so it did not change the law for everyone, and again...that is not how laws should work. Either everyone has the same law or they don't. You can't have groups petitioning to have laws changed for only that group of people. I'm done debating this, if you can't understand that law either applies to all, or to none, then I don't know what else to say to convince you.

So the inaccuracy of part of this has already been addressed sufficiently.

However, My motorcycle (sugar-daddy) question goes straight to the heart of your argument. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of laws that apply to a specific group, trade, industry, etc... But, it is my opinion that on this particular issue, you are allowing emotion and a disdain for what you, incorrectly in my opinion, see as an issue of personal freedom and religion.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

As for when life begins, I know I'll never change your mind on it, but just so you know where I stand, I believe it is around the point in which a fetus could possibly survive without the aid of its mother....so perhaps somewhere around the 25 week mark. At conception there is not much more than an egg, is it life??? Technically yes, in as much as any human cell is life, is it a life form? No. Having said that, I don't particularly believe in late term abortions (typically after 20 weeks) as some premature babies as young as 21 weeks have survived. The only case in which I would support it, if there was a medical need for it.

I don't know what I've written so far to make you think I can't change my mind. I tend to be rather rational and analytic, but that is also tempered by a strong sense of individual responsibility and a well defined moral code. However, as I stated in my last long post, I am unaware of any core religious text that clearly defines the moment that life begins. I am quite open to a scientifically proven answer to that question. But, until then, you're quite likely correct that you won't change my mind. But "never" only applies so long as your argument is based on opinion.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

And no, I don't need to watch an abortion, I don't even know why anyone would film that other than to use it as a tool to try and scare women in to not having an abortion. It's sensationalism at it absolute worst and the people who filmed it and distribute it should be ashamed of themselves. To film something like that...something so emotionally taxing for the woman, and to use it as a scare tactic is disgusting. Look...contrary to what you believe, I'm not some heartless baby killer. If I were ever in a position where I felt I needed to have an abortion, it would be the hardest most emotional decision of my life. It would be heart wrenching and deeply personal, and yes, would mourn for the loss of a potential life. But I also know that rationally, if I were unable to look after myself and that child, that it was the correct option.

It is not sensationalism. It is reality. And it was made to bring that reality to the public eye. In my opinion, it should be mandatory viewing, so that people know exactly what abortion is. And this was not late term. The ears were not fully formed. The eyes were still closed shut. It did not go out of it's way to demonstrate the gore.... and it didn't need to. It was nothing more than a video of an abortion, narrated by a doctor, that explained the process and the tools used. The door was wide open for "sensationalism", but I think the makers were quite aware that it is totally unnecessary, and would only serve to lessen its validity. For that very reason, I would think that anyone who promotes it, would want to see it so that they comprehended exactly what they were promoting. But then....... maybe the truth would hurt a little too much.

Like you, I think it would end up being an emotionally devastating process, and I think one that most women would regret for the rest of their lives. I personally know 2 women that have gone public about the damage that decision has done to their lives and their relationships. I think that reason alone is worth the effort to educate her before she makes that decision. Adoption is a totally viable, completely legitimate, and imho, very responsible alternative. Even that, I would think, would come with a degree of pain and regret, but I think it would have far less damaging regret than an abortion. At least to those that think along the lines that you and I seem to think. I realize that there a fair many women who profess no regret whatsoever, and many who have had multiple abortions. As one that considers it a murder, I would think you would find me far less tolerable if I said "Who gives a shit", than standing up for what I believe. ???

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

My response of "sure, a minority started these fights, but they certainly didn't win them" was in reply to your statement that America would still have a king or be speaking German if it wasn't for a minority group of people. What I meant by that is that opposition to the king of England may have started off as a minority, but in order to become an independent nation, Americans had to come together and show their displeasure. It wasn't one guy saying, "I have a problem with the king, change the system".

Ok. But for the record, at the time the Revolutionary war broke out, those wanting to secede from England were a minority. Whether it became a majority or not, I don't know. There were certainly a lot of "americans" fighting with and/or aiding the British.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

Lastly, you know what I meant by precious book...I meant the bible.

I suspected. But I've been attacked for my assumptions several times already. And if it was just another snide remark against something that is quite important to me (which we also both know thats exactly what it was), I at least felt it needed to be acknowledged. Thank you.

But as I've also clearly explained, this is not a religious issue to me. In our society, murder is illegal regardless of faith. I do believe that it's likely that a majority of the anti-abortion crowd are moved to action as a result of the convictions they have through their faith, but I am not sure that I know anyone for whom "religion" plays any part of it outside of "Thou shall not murder". Yet, since opposition to murder is not excluded to religious people, it cannot be argued that religion is the reason for the fight.

Quote:

Originally posted by BMA

If Sugar-daddy owned 400 Yamaha dealerships, and the government wanted him to pay for helmets and rider training and knee braces for every motorcyclist that bought a bike at his dealership, passed a law to that effect and then decided they would exclude small dealers because they don't have the money, and he's too big... would he be in his right to file a suit against the law based on the fact that it's not his responsibility to pay for something that every employee may not use, agree with or even want, but rather that those that want them should pay for those items themselves? And where would be a good place to draw that line of a dealer with too many dealerships?

I think I finally understand what you'e trying to ask, but its not really the same situation. In your example, the law that your hypothesized doesn't effect the employees, it effects the customers, as they are the ones receiving the helmet, training, and knee braces...the employees don't have anything to do with it. ACA, and being excluded for some items effects the employees directly...maybe not all of them, but certainly some...just as diabetic drugs would effect some of them, but not all of them. So I really can't make a fair comparison. Also, I've said it before, that the only way that a national healthcare system will work, is that everyone pays into it, and everyone gets the same basic level of care. If you want additional coverage, then you can pay extra for that. You don't believe in a national healthcare system, so you really don't care about what I just said. Regardless, you now have a system in place, and if you keep allowing exceptions, it will fail. Which is fine by you, but not for a lot of people.

Quote:

Originally posted by BMA

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of laws that apply to a specific group, trade, industry, etc...

True, but they apply to ALL the trades involved, or all the industries. An example would be, you can't sell used car parts as new car parts in the automotive industry...but that law applies to ALL automotive shops...you can't get an exemption because you don't believe in the law. Want another one? Its law that all employees that are around hazardous goods take a course on how to properly handle them, (at least in Canada it is, but for sake of argument assume it is in the US too) a company can't opt out of that law because it doesn't suit them.

Quote:

Originally posted by F1098

I am confused by this. Who is the judge of the religious principle of it ?

This really is a Pandora's box of shit. Anybody want to suggest how this would be monitored by the government ?

The real slippery slope is if we allow government to be the judge of religious principle! DID YOU KNOW that, in arguing this case before the Supreme Court, Obama's lawyers actually said they believe they can compel *any* doctor, who works for money [duh!] to perform abortions?!?!? (yeah, it's on record. You could look it up!) THAT is why government judging religious principle, and deciding when freedom applies, MUST be stopped now!!


I honestly would have a very different view if the company involved were publicly held, with an elected board of directors, and yadda yadda yadda...

Quote:

Originally posted by nemisis02

kylecook, I think blackwater was referring to the fact that Obama has used Executive orders to change ACA or the implementation of ACA which is outside his purview as President. Changes to the law itself or its implementation are under the purview of Congress (i.e. the Legislative branch), Obama's duty to ACA just like any other law is to ensure that it is enforced as it was written, not change how it works because it suits his agenda better that way. The delay of implementation of the Employer mandates and any other portion of ACA, is beyond Obama's authority.

The contraceptive mandate itself was added after the law was passed, and not even by the president, but by the Secretary of HHS!!

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

this is not a religious issue to me.

That's good to know. Just a coincidence then...

Quote:

Originally posted by BillK

Obama's lawyers actually said they believe they can compel *any* doctor, who works for money [duh!] to perform abortions?!?!?

Really? They are going to compel doctors to perform medical procedures? Assholes!

Quote:

Originally posted by ranging

...
That's good to know. Just a coincidence then...

I would certainly have to say, and have already, that I think so, but since it's impossible for me to separate the impact of one belief on another, I can't possibly answer that question on a objective personal level. Without my faith, I don't know where I would stand, because I don't know if that IS the reason for my conviction. However, since I know quite a number of staunch agnostic doctors that vehemently oppose abortion in any case except when it threatens the life of the mother, and we tend to share quite a number of ideological viewpoints, I definitely believe that yes, it's more coincidence than driving force. To me, it is a case about murder, and I think I would feel quite the same about murder either way. Most of us do. I am fairly sure from my experience that you find a much greater percentage of people taking the "life starts at conception" stance that are people of faith, but it is certainly not a viewpoint that is exclusive to people of religion. Any religion.


The good news is that the abortion rate has dropped significantly since 1974, particularly among teens. It has also dropped significantly among whites.
Black and hispanics above 20 have risen dramatically, and the overall "20's" demographic has risen from 50% of all abortions to 57%. Of course, since this is when women are most establishing their "place" in the world, that this is the largest demographic remains no surprise. But it also bolsters the opinion that abortions tend to be a decision of convenience and personal goal, than about other factors.

Among all people, save perhaps the population-control crowd, a drop in abortions is considered a good thing, so there's good reason to celebrate for all. Even if it is never again banned, which I doubt it will be, education and giving the opportunity to as many lives as possible to reach their full potential is probably a goal we can all agree is worthwhile. Now, if we could only agree on how to accomplish that.