Biggest US Supreme Court ruling of the year

[Kelinfort]

Sets a bad precedent, while I disagree with the ruling, the more important aspect is that private exemptions are only limited to contraceptives. If not, we have a serious issue on our hands.

Well, we'll see. Next time a gay couple is told they have to go somewhere else to get a wedding cake, I betcha this ruling comes up.

Hopefully they make the right decision.

[Ashmoria]

Sets a bad precedent, while I disagree with the ruling, the more important aspect is that private exemptions are only limited to contraceptives. If not, we have a serious issue on our hands.

Well, we'll see. Next time a gay couple is told they have to go somewhere else to get a wedding cake, I betcha this ruling comes up.

if a corporation can have a religious conscience then surely a local baker can have the same kind of conscience.

[The Serbian Empire]

But the condom doesn't do that. However, it does prevent a fair number of genital warts, but not as much as the HPV vaccine.

Have you checked the settings on your Sarcasm Detector lately?

No, but it hasn't been cutting out enough to justify such checks.

[The Yorkshire Commonwealth]

Well, we'll see. Next time a gay couple is told they have to go somewhere else to get a wedding cake, I betcha this ruling comes up.

Gay is the new black.

How foolish racists must feel, that they didn't think of claiming that serving blacks was 'against their religion.'

[Farnhamia]

Well, we'll see. Next time a gay couple is told they have to go somewhere else to get a wedding cake, I betcha this ruling comes up.

if a corporation can have a religious conscience then surely a local baker can have the same kind of conscience.

He's probably incorporated, so, yeah.

[Doitsu-san]

Most people do not use birth control pills to prevent ovarian cysts. Making employers provide contraceptives due to some positive side affects is idiotic.

Please the ignorance.

So do you have a source for the claim? I can guess you don't.

Employers aren't providing contraception. They are providing insurance.

If you think that most people use the pill to prevent ovarian cysts, it just proves you know nothing about the issue in the first place.

Employers are providing the money that pays for the insurance, and if this whole contraceptive law was to go in place, the cost of insurance would rise.

[The Serbian Empire]

Well, we'll see. Next time a gay couple is told they have to go somewhere else to get a wedding cake, I betcha this ruling comes up.

if a corporation can have a religious conscience then surely a local baker can have the same kind of conscience.

And this ruling will probably be used to preserve what same-sex marriage bans that still exist let alone businesses not serving such customers.

[Trollzilla]

There is are two possible solutions to this conundrum:

1. While the current Tea Party controlled House of Representatives will not endorse a constitutional amendment, we can get the states to pass one over Congress head. But that route is a very difficult and has a high likely hood of never happening because the requirements are so high.

2. The government can take over responsibility for ensuring that both men and women and hermaphrodites (trans people like me) have access to the contraception we need. This will eliminate employers responsibility in this regard and perhaps even insurance companies' responsibility in this regard. In exchange we raise taxes on both insurance companies and private employers enough to cover the contraception the government provides to their employees and health plan policy holders. Either way, the employers will have to pay.

or
3. the president can offer the employees of hobbylobby the same deal he gave the employees of catholic businesses--a free rider provided directly by the insurer. it makes a modicum of sense to me that the hobbylobby family could be considered the same kind of moral agent as the catholic church.

There is that.

[Gauthier]

if a corporation can have a religious conscience then surely a local baker can have the same kind of conscience.

And this ruling will probably be used to preserve what same-sex marriage bans that still exist let alone businesses not serving such customers.

The best way to destroy religious excuse is to have Muslims try to use the exact same excuse.

[The Black Forrest]

Ok. You have been told the condom argument is invalid as this involves the pill. The fact you keep repeating it; makes you look ignorant.

The vitamin argument is rather ignorant

The ruling affects the pill which I think runs 60-100 dollars. I am not sure of the cost.

Hobby Lobby isn't paying for the pill. They pay for insurance. What the insurance company provides; why should it matter? Healthy employees is a good thing.

The pill isn't only about sex. Read up on the medical use.

If the insurance company has to pay for the pill, what the company pays will increase. Basic logic.

And do you know how much it will go up?

This suit wasn't about cost.

Condoms are an alternative to the pill, they may not have the preventative side affects, but they do the primary function of the pill which is birth control.

Again an ignorant statement.

A healthy life style and some types of vitamins can reduce cancer/heart disease rates just as good as the pill, even better than the pill, which really makes the positive side affects irrelevant when you can achieve the same results for free.

You really don't understand the female body eh?

an anecdotal example. I once dated a track star (she was really good at the 440). She had issues with her cycle. Guess what brought them into order.

The "medical uses" are insignificant as it is, and are proved irrelevant by other methods (e.g. a healthy lifestyle).

Ignorance isn't a thing to be proud.

[The Black Forrest]

Please the ignorance.

So do you have a source for the claim? I can guess you don't.

Employers aren't providing contraception. They are providing insurance.

If you think that most people use the pill to prevent ovarian cysts, it just proves you know nothing about the issue in the first place.

It's simpler just to say you don't have a source.

Employers are providing the money that pays for the insurance, and if this whole contraceptive law was to go in place, the cost of insurance would rise.

So you don't know how much.

[Saiwania]

contraception is essential to women's health.

I'll agree with that, but I don't think it is important for men's health. Like it or not, the male role in reproduction is minor in comparison.

[Gauthier]

contraception is essential to women's health.

I'll agree with that, but I don't think it is important for men's health. Like it or not, the male role in reproduction is minor in comparison.

Let me know when men are demanding contraceptive pills.

[The Black Forrest]

contraception is essential to women's health.

I'll agree with that, but I don't think it is important for men's health. Like it or not, the male role in reproduction is minor in comparison.

Indeed. Our part is fun.

[The Serbian Empire]

And this ruling will probably be used to preserve what same-sex marriage bans that still exist let alone businesses not serving such customers.

The best way to destroy religious excuse is to have Muslims try to use the exact same excuse.

But then one would probably see the religious and civil rights groups who favor freedom of religion squirm.

[Ashmoria]

contraception is essential to women's health.

I'll agree with that, but I don't think it is important for men's health. Like it or not, the male role in reproduction is minor in comparison.

ok but I don't know why you are making that point.

[Doitsu-san]

If the insurance company has to pay for the pill, what the company pays will increase. Basic logic.

And do you know how much it will go up?

This suit wasn't about cost.

Condoms are an alternative to the pill, they may not have the preventative side affects, but they do the primary function of the pill which is birth control.

Again an ignorant statement.

A healthy life style and some types of vitamins can reduce cancer/heart disease rates just as good as the pill, even better than the pill, which really makes the positive side affects irrelevant when you can achieve the same results for free.

You really don't understand the female body eh?

an anecdotal example. I once dated a track star (she was really good at the 440). She had issues with her cycle. Guess what brought them into order.

The "medical uses" are insignificant as it is, and are proved irrelevant by other methods (e.g. a healthy lifestyle).

Ignorance isn't a thing to be proud.

I guess you just fill in whatever you cannot respond to with "your ignorant".

If you have issues with your period cycle, you can simply buy the pills yourself. Periods are a natural occurrence and don't harm the health of a woman, if you have problems with them, again, you can simply buy the pills yourself. Regarding the cost of insurance, if this was to pass, it would go up quite a bit considering invasive procedures such as tubal ligation are covered.

[Atlanticatia]

Why is it that, in America, there is more of a social stigma on a poor person having sex than there is on a person believing using birth control will make everyone go to hell?

The poor will receive some stigmatization anywhere, but one of the reasons is because they have more children statistically speaking than rich or middle class people do, and that further entrenches them into poverty. It isn't really fair for the children to possibly have to grow up in a broken home with no financial stability, so the state has to intervene on occasion.

So restricting peoples' access to birth control and other sexual health services will make them have less children how?

[Gauthier]

The poor will receive some stigmatization anywhere, but one of the reasons is because they have more children statistically speaking than rich or middle class people do, and that further entrenches them into poverty. It isn't really fair for the children to possibly have to grow up in a broken home with no financial stability, so the state has to intervene on occasion.

So restricting peoples' access to birth control and other sexual health services will make them have less children how?

Now now, if the poor are able to control their own reproduction how will society have a pool of cheap, disposable human resources?

[Ashmoria]

And do you know how much it will go up?

This suit wasn't about cost.



Again an ignorant statement.



You really don't understand the female body eh?

an anecdotal example. I once dated a track star (she was really good at the 440). She had issues with her cycle. Guess what brought them into order.



Ignorance isn't a thing to be proud.

I guess you just fill in whatever you cannot respond to with "your ignorant".

If you have issues with your period cycle, you can simply buy the pills yourself. Periods are a natural occurrence and don't harm the health of a woman, if you have problems with them, again, you can simply buy the pills yourself. Regarding the cost of insurance, if this was to pass, it would go up quite a bit considering invasive procedures such as tubal ligation are covered.

do you even understand the point of insurance?

[Doitsu-san]

If you think that most people use the pill to prevent ovarian cysts, it just proves you know nothing about the issue in the first place.

It's simpler just to say you don't have a source.

Employers are providing the money that pays for the insurance, and if this whole contraceptive law was to go in place, the cost of insurance would rise.

So you don't know how much.

Well, do you have a source that says most women use a birth control pill to control ovarian cysts? I remember someone posting statistics earlier, and after skimming over them I don't believe I saw a major percentage of women doing that.

I do not know how much, because the rise hasn't happened yet and will not happen now that this ruling has been in place. It is only basic logic to assume that when additional costs are added, the price will rise.

[Liriena]

(massive liberal butthurt ftw.)

Awwww, that's so cute! Look! He's gloating! *pets condescendingly*

[The Black Forrest]

And do you know how much it will go up?

This suit wasn't about cost.



Again an ignorant statement.



You really don't understand the female body eh?

an anecdotal example. I once dated a track star (she was really good at the 440). She had issues with her cycle. Guess what brought them into order.



Ignorance isn't a thing to be proud.

I guess you just fill in whatever you cannot respond to with "your ignorant".

Calling your ignorant statements ignorant is a response.

If you have issues with your period cycle, you can simply buy the pills yourself. Periods are a natural occurrence and don't harm the health of a woman, if you have problems with them, again, you can simply buy the pills yourself. Regarding the cost of insurance, if this was to pass, it would go up quite a bit considering invasive procedures such as tubal ligation are covered.

As Ash asked "Do you even understand the point of insurance?"

[Saiwania]

So restricting peoples' access to birth control and other sexual health services will make them have less children how?

I'm saying that even with birth control, poor people will generally still have more children, a good majority of them make the wrong decisions repeatedly. Some Gypsies for example, pull their female children out of school at early ages to marry young and that is just hurting their economic potential for the sake of upholding a dreadfully archaic lifestyle.

[Farnhamia]

And do you know how much it will go up?

This suit wasn't about cost.



Again an ignorant statement.



You really don't understand the female body eh?

an anecdotal example. I once dated a track star (she was really good at the 440). She had issues with her cycle. Guess what brought them into order.



Ignorance isn't a thing to be proud.

I guess you just fill in whatever you cannot respond to with "your ignorant".

If you have issues with your period cycle, you can simply buy the pills yourself. Periods are a natural occurrence and don't harm the health of a woman, if you have problems with them, again, you can simply buy the pills yourself. Regarding the cost of insurance, if this was to pass, it would go up quite a bit considering invasive procedures such as tubal ligation are covered.

This ruling does not prevent the PPACA from "passing." It passed several years ago. All this ruling says is that private corporations whose owners have religious objections to providing contraception do not have to pay for insurance policies that cover contraception. Publicly held companies, ones with stock-holders that are traded on the various exchanges, don't get this free pass. You might really want to stop making statements about the effects of a menstrual period on a woman's health and well-being, too, seeing as how you appear to have no experience with them whatsoever.