Hobby Lobby Ruling

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

I think I finally understand what you'e trying to ask, but its not really the same situation.

Much of what you wrote is right and we agree, so I'll not respond. But at the time I wrote my question, it was regarding your commentary indicating that HL was "too big" to get away with this. It was too arbitrary. So I was establishing a similar situation and asking you to draw the line where a company gets too big to be permitted to make these decisions. That's why I was using a scenario where it was dad's money, and not some faceless corporation.

To me size of the company makes no difference. How it's owned does. And that's all I was looking for with this question.

In that question, near the end, I incorrectly substituted the word "employees", when it should have read "customers". I think that added to the confusion.

I never insulated that Hobby Lobby was too big...you mis-understood me. I don't care if you're 10 employees or 100,000 employees; If the law states that a certain drug or medical procedure is covered under ACA, then it should be covered by every company...regardless of size. What I said was, the term "closely held" is a joke. It suggests that the owners have a "hands on" approach to business, that they are there working side by side with their employees, and thats just silly. All it means is that less than 6 people are the primary investors in the company. I then asked whats the difference between a closely held company, and one that isn't? Why does a "closely held" company like Hobby Lobby get to change the law, but a company like General Motors doesn't? Its just another example of how this new Hobby Lobby law does not apply to everybody.

Quote:

Originally posted by ranging

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

Liberal sarcasm?

So government is going to compel all people with a drivers license to drive they car they want? Assholes!

So government is going to compel farmers to specifically grow the crop they want? Assholes!

So government compels your auto mechanic to begin working on the jet you take on your next vacation? Assholes!

So government is going to compel the local pediatrician to do your brain surgery? Assholes! Hmmmm.....

Maybe doctors cease to be citizens and lose their free will when they become doctors. How would you like to be a doctor today and have the rules of engagement changed in the middle of your career. Instead of something you pursued out of ambition, or desire to help others, you now find yourself subject to the whim of the Obama administration, or even worse, and unelected offical at HHS.

Yep. Loss of personal freedom is no big deal, until it's YOURS!!!

Asshole?

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

...
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.

The main reason abortion rates have dropped is because birth control is not such a taboo thing any more, and in some places in the world its much easier to get.

The reason its risen in some communities, such as black and hispanic communities is that access to birth control is still challenged, due primarily to limited healthcare and low income.

Lastly...there is NOTHING, and I mean nothing convenient about an abortion, and you suggesting so makes me so furious that I had to take 10 minutes to calm down to reply to you. It is a horrible, awful experience...one which even pro choice people avoid talking to you about because its so emotion. You often have to wade through protesters yelling at you and calling you a baby killer, and when its finally over and you need some support, there is often no one there for you. And a personal goal?? Do you honestly think that getting an abortion is some sort of badge of honour? Seriously...go back to the rock that you crawled out from and stop talking about something that you obvious know nothing about.

You can be against abortion if you want, thats your choice and one that I know I'll never change, but stop assuming that you know the reasons for it, you just look like a douchebag asshole when you do.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

I never insulated that Hobby Lobby was too big...you mis-understood me. I don't care if you're 10 employees or 100,000 employees; If the law states that a certain drug or medical procedure is covered under ACA, then it should be covered by every company...regardless of size. What I said was, the term "closely held" is a joke. It suggests that the owners have a "hands on" approach to business, that they are there working side by side with their employees, and thats just silly. All it means is that less than 6 people are the primary investors in the company. I then asked whats the difference between a closely held company, and one that isn't? Why does a "closely held" company like Hobby Lobby get to change the law, but a company like General Motors doesn't? Its just another example of how this new Hobby Lobby law does not apply to everybody.

See, you say it doesn't matter, then go into this argument about it being hands-on ownership. That is exactly what my question was meant to address. The only point I was trying to get you to see, from my opinion, is that it doesn't matter how many Yamaha dealerships dad may own, or if he knows every employee, manages it all on his own, or hires managers and spends 100% of his time with his feet propped on a beach chair in Tahiti, or camped in a tent in Banff. It's HIS company, he started, it's his money to lose. Anyone that doesn't like the way he runs it is free to leave for another opportunity, or go create their own. If it's his company, then he has certain rights to run that company that do not extend to a publicly owned company. That is my sole point here. You may not agree with it. But at present, it is law, and I would suspect that 99% of people that have ever owned a business, whether it succeeded or failed, would agree.

It's back to an issue of personal rights. If you (or a small group) own it, then you should have the rights to spend your money within the confines of the law as you so choose. Which brings us full circle back to what this decision decided. It said "Yes, Hobby Lobby, you have this right. As I see it, to disagree with that ruling, and then say that other people, or the government have no right to tell you what to do, is more than just a little hypocritical. It's the same feet. Just a different pair of shoes.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...


Lastly...there is NOTHING, and I mean nothing convenient about an abortion, and you suggesting so makes me so furious that I had to take 10 minutes to calm down to reply to you. It is a horrible, awful experience...one which even pro choice people avoid talking to you about because its so emotion. You often have to wade through protesters yelling at you and calling you a baby killer, and when its finally over and you need some support, there is often no one there for you. And a personal goal?? Do you honestly think that getting an abortion is some sort of badge of honour? Seriously...go back to the rock that you crawled out from and stop talking about something that you obvious know nothing about.

WOW. Civil conversation with you is certainly a challenge.

You yourself stated earlier that you hoped you never had to make such an agonizing decision, but if you knew you could not properly care for a child, then abortion would be the right choice for you.

Separating emotion from it, that is a choice of convenience. Maybe you'd like a different word?

By "goal", I'm talking about career goals. A baby would get in the way of those goals.

I know that the "20's" is also the most sexually active and adventerous demographic, and that contributes to the rate as well, but it doesn't change the fact that many women in their 20's choose an abortion over delivery because of it's impact on her career, and/or her perceived ability to find a mate. You think I'm just making that up? C'mon. If so, it's not me hiding under the rock. The cold hard facts of this issue are very unpleasant, from many different viewpoints.

I wonder what the baby in the video I posted was experiencing as the forceps crushed it's skull? I guess the only consolation is that it's suffering didn't last a lifetime, it just snuffed a lifetime out.

While I might not know anything about what it's like to experience an abortion from personal experience, I have certainly listened to many that have. What I do have experience with is the agonizing 7 month long wait, hoping your wife lives, after the doctors told her at 8 weeks, "We need to abort this baby". I loved my wife more than that baby. My wife would not consider it.

Oh what a beautiful young woman that baby is turning out to be.

There's one difference I have with the staunchest of the anti crowd. I could never tell a woman who has been told "For your own survival, we need to abort", that she could not do it. I could not force her to give up her own life, for the potential life of her baby. My wife is different. She is a no abortion for any reason person. All i can say is she practiced what she preaches and was willing to accept the consequences. It was a hard 7 months for me.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

Maybe doctors cease to be citizens and lose their free will when they become doctors. How would you like to be a doctor today and have the rules of engagement changed in the middle of your career. Instead of something you pursued out of ambition, or desire to help others, you now find yourself subject to the whim of the Obama administration, or even worse, and unelected offical at HHS.

I think you'll find that the loss of freedom you are referring to is known as having a job.

The rest of your post isn't worth commenting on because it isn't based in reality.

Quote:

Originally posted by ranging

...


The rest of your post isn't worth commenting on because it isn't based in reality.

That's utter bullshit. Doctors have always had the right and freedom to choose what field of medicine they would pursue, what procedures they would practice, and largely, what customers they would serve, so long as it didn't discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion...

To claim anything to the contrary is nothing more than wrong. To pick a politically hot topic and force a doctor to perform an abortion would violate everything the constitution stands for.

It is complete hypocrisy to say "You can't tell a woman she can't..." but "you can tell a doctor he must..."

Maybe I'm weird, but the last thing I want working on me while I'm under sedation is a doctor that was forced beyond his will to do the procedure?
A doctor can have many reasons for not wanting to do a procedure. Risk. Outside his/her expertise.... and they have pledged to work to save lives. If that doctor believes he is killing a living human for any reason other than saving the life of another, then it is YOU that is forcing your will on another.

For some reason, I thought the forcing of one's will on another is what got this whole issue started. Or maybe I'm just clouded by rationale. As long as it is legal to do an abortion, finding a person willing to trade their time for your money is not going to be hard. Forcing those with a moral opposition to do it, just ain't right. Nope it ain't. Saying otherwise is talking out both sides of your mouth.

Quote:

Originally posted by ranging

...
I think you'll find that the loss of freedom you are referring to is known as having a job.

.

I agree with this, as it refers to a "job".

Most doctors are independent contractors. That comes with the right to choose what medicine you practice. Period.

If a hospital's ownership dictates that for a doctor to work for them they must be willing to do an abortion, then the hospital has that right... as long as it's privately owned hospital.

If a doctor says "I will not do an abortion", he has that right. But he doesn't have the right to force his employment on a hospital that says "yes you do".

If a doctor is a direct employee of any company, then they must follow the requirements of that employment. If he/she doesn't like it, they are free to leave.

You see, I'm completely consistent here. The rights of a private company, the rights of the doctor, the rights of an independent contractor vs those of an employee, the employer/employee relationship,. it's all intricately intertwined and each has different circumstances. I will consistently come down on the side of individual rights, as long as the terms of negotiation are fair, and those rights do NOT interfere with the rights of another. The facility can set guidelines and the doctor can set guidelines, If they can't agree on those guidelines then they aren't for each other. And if the doctor agrees to abandon his/her moral standard for a paycheck, then don't cry "unfair" down the road. If in the middle of employment, a doctor decides "What I'm doing isn't right", then don't cry unfair. Leave, if you want, but otherwise shut up and live with your decision. But damnit, don't infringe upon that right of the doctor any more than you want the right of the woman infringed.

I love America born and raised here if you think her laws should be adjusted or changed pack your sh@t and hit the road its that simple if you can't afford a condom keep the zipper up!!!

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

...

It's back to an issue of personal rights. If you (or a small group) own it, then you should have the rights to spend your money within the confines of the law as you so choose. Which brings us full circle back to what this decision decided. It said "Yes, Hobby Lobby, you have this right. As I see it, to disagree with that ruling, and then say that other people, or the government have no right to tell you what to do, is more than just a little hypocritical. It's the same feet. Just a different pair of shoes.

Let's be clear about the ruling as it is laid out in the Alito opinion. Even in that opinion, Alito agrees that the Government had a compelling interest in requiring employers to provide contraceptive benefits. In the words of the Court - "It is important to confirm that a premise of the Court's opinion is its assumption that the HHS regulation here at issue furthers a legitimate and compelling interest in the health of female employees." The Court did NOT argue that the benefit should not be provided. The Alito opinion argues that the government made an accomodation for religious groups (where the benefit will be paid for by a third party and not by the religious organization) and should make similar provisions for closely held companies that also have a religious objection.
The contraceptive mandate does not disappear under the Hobby Lobby decision. But it does get paid by someone else.

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

...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.

I'm glad you brought that up... At certain points in history it was legal for people to kill people that disrepected them (Like Samurai in Japan). Enough people didn't like that so it was changed. Better bring it back because everything should be like it always was! WOOO!

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

...Adoption is a totally viable, completely legitimate, and imho, very responsible alternative.

Remind me again how many kids there is in the foster care system without parents..?

Quote:

Originally posted by Althalus

...
Remind me again how many kids there is in the foster care system without parents..?

Ya know, I've got three different friend couples that have spent over 30K to go overseas to get children. Only one of which was an infant, and two are special needs.

If you really want to discuss what a sham the "child services" has become in the US, we can, but I doubt you'll like what you hear.

Ain't it sad that it's easier to spend 30K and fly half way around the world than it is to get a kid in the US that desperately wants a home?

Let's just put it this way. Budgets are based, and hirings are done, and the bureaucracy is fed by the number of kids in the system. If you can't figure it out from there, we probably don't have a whole lot to discuss. I've taken one into my home too, so I have a little experience with it.

But that is not to denigrate the many dedicated foster parents out there, and those that entered the system to help the kids. The system has tied their hands.

Quote:

Originally posted by Althalus

...
I'm glad you brought that up... At certain points in history it was legal for people to kill people that disrepected them (Like Samurai in Japan). Enough people didn't like that so it was changed. Better bring it back because everything should be like it always was! WOOO!

Besides making a stupid comment that twist my context beyond comprehension, and implies I said "Everything should be like it always was", which I didn't say, is there a point to this?

Exocet,

So you're saying that under the HL decision, NO ONE is denied anything? Just HL does not have to pay for it. Correct?

Quote:

Originally posted by bustMall

Exocet,

So you're saying that under the HL decision, NO ONE is denied anything? Just HL does not have to pay for it. Correct?

that is the truth.

Quote:

Originally posted by ranging

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

THIS truly frightens me! Look, capital punishment is legal, but no one morally opposed to it is compelled to participate!
SERIOUSLY, you people SCARE me! And, you can probably preach "TOLERANCE and DIVERSITY in your next sentence, just before calling Dick Cheney a Nazi. DIVERSITY as long as you do things our way?!?!?!??!? THAT, my "friends," is Nazism.

Eh, I'm glad I largely stay away from these types of threads.

To go back to something bustmall posted a few days ago, yes, the drugs at issue work prior to fertilization, not just prior to attachment. There is some question with some forms of Plan B as to whether it also serves to thin the uterine wall so that a fertilized egg can't attach and create a viable pregnancy.

But since these forms of birth control work prior to fertilization, the question of right to life and talk about killing babies is wrong, and frequently just rhetoric. And as I said earlier, hobby lobby had defined abortion as terminating a pregnancy after a fertilized egg had attached to the uterine wall. So even if Plan B does prevent a fertilized egg from attaching, it wouldn't be abortion as hobby lobby defined it. Which is why the majority opinion emphasized that it was the "beliefs" that were relevant, rather than the science.

Quote:

Originally posted by BillK

...


THIS truly frightens me! Look, capital punishment is legal, but no one morally opposed to it is compelled to participate!
SERIOUSLY, you people SCARE me! And, you can probably preach "TOLERANCE and DIVERSITY in your next sentence, just before calling Dick Cheney a Nazi. DIVERSITY as long as you do things our way?!?!?!??!? THAT, my "friends," is Nazism.

Ah yes, calling others nazis.... Always the mark of a good conversation.

Comparing this ruling to what happens in capital punishment cases is interesting, IMO. If you are opposed to capital punishment, even if it is for religious reasons, you can't sit on a capital trial jury. So you aren't compelled to participate. Just he opposite - you can't participate.

But that goes off topic.

Quote:

Originally posted by kylecook

...

Ah yes, calling others nazis.... Always the mark of a good conversation.

Comparing this ruling to what happens in capital punishment cases is interesting, IMO. If you are opposed to capital punishment, even if it is for religious reasons, you can't sit on a capital trial jury. So you aren't compelled to participate. Just he opposite - you can't participate.

But that goes off topic.

Sorry, man. You did not READ my posts!
AND, that's not just the baseless name calling those without facts engage in. I gave you the REASONS for my conclusions!
Those who persist in calling themselves ""pro-CHOICE"" only stand for THEIR OWN choice.
What if a doctor wouldn't administer botox, because he perceived it as harmful?? Would you compel him/her to do that?????????????

(sorry but, after reading your post again, I'm actually chuckling about how poorly you read my points, and how your logic just stumbles all over itself.)

btw, your perception of who's allowed to participate in a capital trial is oversimplified, but I'm not here to give you a civics lessons. BUT, IF your principle of not being allowed to participate if you don't believe it's right were applied to abortion, much of my argument would be rendered moot!