The Supreme Court's 5 to 4 Ruling, on birth control.

I don't agree with it for many reasons.

The precedent basically sets it so that:

1. The employer (who might be a perverted lecherous person) now violates the privacy of their employees if the employees ask for IUD, or other types of birth control.



2. Many privately held corporations and businesses basically can now put conditions on what their employees do with what they should be EARNING in TRADE for the labor the employees provide the employer.

Telling what benefits, a company will and will not provide to the employee, is the equivalent of handing the employee a paycheck for the work they do, and then telling them they can't use their hard earned money for certain things that violate the boss's religious views.


3. The Supreme Court Justices, that were not part of the dissent, don't offer a logical cogent counter argument about why their ruling today won't expand to other medical procedures like vaccines, they basically just without any logical argument, say in effect "it just won't have a ripple effect into other medical procedures, because we say so".


4. The Supreme Court Justices, that were not part of the dissent, basically said that GOVERNMENT's job should be providing contraceptive services. But this doesn't work as a solution because as it stands there is a HUGE religious based issue regarding religious expression being violated when taxpayer money funds abortion and other contraceptive type procedures, that an irrational quasi-political-religious part of society FEELS = abortion.

And I say FEELS, because religious-political groups tend to be really uneducated about science behind why contraception method A works and why contraception method B works, and how they differ etc..

It's an extremely bad ruling, and I'd like to see a logical counter-argument from someone here that can build a case were the Justices that voted in favor of 'Hobby Lobby' argument, failed to explain or contain.

Or just state your own position on the ruling and side with me.


@Moderators I will be posting this in the "Birth Control subforum too", as this is relevant there.

 

I don't agree with it for many reasons.

The precedent basically sets it so that:

1. The employer (who might be a perverted lecherous person) now violates the privacy of their employees if the employees ask for IUD, or other types of birth control.



2. Many privately held corporations and businesses basically can now put conditions on what their employees do with what they should be EARNING in TRADE for the labor the employees provide the employer.

Telling what benefits, a company will and will not provide to the employee, is the equivalent of handing the employee a paycheck for the work they do, and then telling them they can't use their hard earned money for certain things that violate the boss's religious views.


3. The Supreme Court Justices, that were not part of the dissent, don't offer a logical cogent counter argument about why their ruling today won't expand to other medical procedures like vaccines, they basically just without any logical argument, say in effect "it just won't have a ripple effect into other medical procedures, because we say so".


4. The Supreme Court Justices, that were not part of the dissent, basically said that GOVERNMENT's job should be providing contraceptive services. But this doesn't work as a solution because as it stands there is a HUGE religious based issue regarding religious expression being violated when taxpayer money funds abortion and other contraceptive type procedures, that an irrational quasi-political-religious part of society FEELS = abortion.

And I say FEELS, because religious-political groups tend to be really uneducated about science behind why contraception method A works and why contraception method B works, and how they differ etc..

It's an extremely bad ruling, and I'd like to see a logical counter-argument from someone here that can build a case were the Justices that voted in favor of 'Hobby Lobby' argument, failed to explain or contain.

Or just state your own position on the ruling and side with me.

What are your concerns legally going forward now? How about personal concerns with your own employers?


@Moderators I will be posting this in the "Birth Control subforum too as well as the Politics forum", as this is relevant there.

 

Once again....there is supposed to be separation of church and state.....but there never is.....I am all for birth control.....unless someone really wants to be pregnant.

 

this was on the news all day today, i think its fuckin stupid

exactly my thoughts, if you can't even explain how it works, then you've got no right to speak on the issue

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

^This is a pdf link found from a google search on the legal court documents.

Does this suffice or should I find more?

http://now.iscotus.org/news/hobby_lobby_corporations_constitutional_rights


http://now.iscotus.org/news/hobby_lobby_scotus_behind_decision


^Above links found from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2013

and

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2014

(Note: oyez is my personal preferred website for legal court archive information, I suggest everyone bookmark it)

If a moderator will also be so kind as to copy the links I provided in THIS particular post into the counterpart post I made in the Politics forum, I would be very appreciative.

 

The thing that gets me is that in addition to the possibility of this expanding to other medical treatment, what's to stop a business from using it in other ways. I'm a business person. I have to carry all of the relevant insurance policies and it costs me quite a bit, to be honest. So what's to stop me from inventing a religion of my own which believes that insurance is a sin? I know it sounds crazy but think about this....lending money at interest is forbidden in Islam. Our entire economy is based on lending money at interest.

So do I get to claim freedom of religion and just be allowed to drop all of my policies? What if my religion requires human sacrifice?

You have a right to practice your religion. But if a church enters into something like running hospitals (plenty of them) they don't just get to faith heal people. They are required to adhere to the same practices and standards on non-church owned hospitals. You willingly entered into business. You can willingly leave business if you feel so strongly about your "deeply held beliefs". Nobody is persecuting you by expecting all of us to play by the same rules.

That being said, Hobby Lobby exercised their right to due process and won. As much as this reflects on the company, it equally reflects on the court. I think the dissenting opinion was absolutely correct when it said the court has entered a mine field.

 

exactly why there should be separation of church and state always......what religion? There are so many now, and new ones are bound to emerge.....correct....and you are right, Wizard, who is to say that one won't emerge or already exists somewhere needing to make human sacrafices?

 

I think the human sacrifice idea is an extreme example but it poses the question...where is the line? We had a line and now we don't so where is the new line? I think the court would be wise to take on another case and overturn what they just did. I wouldn't be surprised if they do just that in the future....especially if politics produce that right judges to do so.

 

The line used to be drawn at "common sense", for instance to be an official religion in the USA there is required due paperwork to be recognized by the IRS among other worldly legal entities like countries and various government agencies.

Religions that involve human sacrifice are not recognized, and that is why we have the legal terminology of "cult" which exist on private funding, and I do not think they are property tax exempt, but they are able to pay those taxes from their members or through scams which the FBI and Interpol usually use to raid or keep a close eye on them.



But you are right wizard it sets a horrible precedent and opens the door to broader interpretation to the lower courts as the majority vote of the Supreme court is very weak on logical basis.

---

Now honestly I would be okay with this ruling IF the justices put conditions that an employee were to get an increase in their paycheck equal to the cost of medical procedure that the employer objects to covering, but the Justices didn't say that.

 

I know right? An I am of the Christian faith and even official catholic Bishops make the faith look bad.

A bishop on tv said that birth control were available at 7-11! He is factually wrong, and therefore makes the faith look dumb and the political side of this argument on this issue look stupid.

It's wrong, because not all forms of birth control is available at 7-11, and for some people if those types of birth control are unusable for you, it is an untrue statement for that individual.


And there is a significant amount of people with latex allergies, and bad reactions to hormonal forms of birth control.

 

That dude actually said that?

Is it possible to merge these two threads into a single thread?

 

YouTube search it he said it as a guest on a national news network.

 

What a dumbass! That's it!!! I'm going to the corner store to get my 4 abortions!!

 

I take it you saw the video?

If you did please feel free to youtube embed the Bishop's and therefore the Catholic Church's sin of a comment (it's a sin because it's a lie, and not true, and the Church has to repent from it's sins to regain God's favor)

 

He said birth control was available. I assumed he was talking about condoms.

 

Just so I'm clear, this only excludes the morning after pill correct?

 

I'm pretty sure the IUD is also an issue, because the family that owns that company believes that life begins at the moment of egg fertilization.

 

Oh lordy.

I didn't really have an opinion on the morning after pill because its an otc and otc drugs are never covered by insurance anyways, but the IUD is sometimes the only BC option for women sensitive to hormonal birth control.