Biggest US Supreme Court ruling of the year

[Liriena]

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.

You didn't answer the question.

[Doitsu-san]

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.

Again, making snarky comments with no contribution to the conversation, great job.

Well, at least since public listed companies have no free pass we will see the rise in insurance I predicted. Hopefully in 2016 things will change and the whole section will be repealed.

[Gauthier]

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.

How much would you like to bet he learned gynecology from Todd Akin?

[The Black Forrest]

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



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 don't have to provide sources as you made the claim most women don't use.....

The point is you don't know how women use the pill. Rather then making ignorant statements; look into the how the pill is used. It's more then just birth control.

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.

Ok basic logic. Amount of female employees. Amount that would need the pill or want the pill......

[Liriena]

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.

Again, making snarky comments with no contribution to the conversation, great job.

You know, lying about a comment while quoting it verbatim is not a good idea.

Well, at least since public listed companies have no free pass we will see the rise in insurance I predicted.

Given your previous assertions regarding women's health and contraception, I can't say I find your predictions reliable.

[Farnhamia]

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.

Again, making snarky comments with no contribution to the conversation, great job.

Well, at least since public listed companies have no free pass we will see the rise in insurance I predicted. Hopefully in 2016 things will change and the whole section will be repealed.

Take it as snark, but really, what experience do you have with women's reproductive health issues that allows you to make such statements?

[The Black Forrest]

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.

Again, making snarky comments with no contribution to the conversation, great job.

Well, at least since public listed companies have no free pass we will see the rise in insurance I predicted. Hopefully in 2016 things will change and the whole section will be repealed.

Not a great move to be snarky at a mod.

She has a point. You don't understand the effects of periods on women's health and well being.

Also, the "rise in insurance" because of the pill will not be that noticeable.

If you knew anything about insurance, it rises every year......

[Doitsu-san]

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 don't have to provide sources as you made the claim most women don't use.....

The point is you don't know how women use the pill. Rather then making ignorant statements; look into the how the pill is used. It's more then just birth control.

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.

Ok basic logic. Amount of female employees. Amount that would need the pill or want the pill......

I just want to facepalm so hard. I'm not even going to debate on your assertion that the majority of women use birth control pills to fight against ulcers, it's so ridiculous and just shows how some people are willing to bask in willful ignorance as long as they think they are right.

Obviously, the rise has not happened yet, so I cannot use wizardry to produce the additional cost to companies. However, it is basic economic theory that if the insurance company has to pay more, the buyer of the insurance (the company) will have to foot the cost.

[JesusOfNazareth]

WOOHOOO!!!! COURTS RULED IN FAVOUR!?!?! AMAZING!!! AWESOME!!! AW YIS!!!! GO HOBBY LOBBY!!!

Am I the only one who thinks it's sad that there's someone out there who roots for a corporation successfully lobbying for the power to impose their own religious values on their employees?

IMNTBHO, your type of argument is the most stupid misdirection that has consistently been put forth by a lot posters in this matter.

The SCOTUS ruling, in no way, imposed a religious value on anyone and did not prohibit any woman from legally seeking and obtaining the contested birth-contol/abortive medications. They did not say that the woman couldn't opt out of employer provided healthcare insurance and pay Obamacare premiums. All SCOTUS ruled was a person or closely held corporation with religious values did not have to violate thier closely held religious beliefs and pay for (currently four) medications that could result in a fertilized and implanted egg being aborted.

[Liriena]

I don't have to provide sources as you made the claim most women don't use.....

The point is you don't know how women use the pill. Rather then making ignorant statements; look into the how the pill is used. It's more then just birth control.



Ok basic logic. Amount of female employees. Amount that would need the pill or want the pill......

I just want to facepalm so hard. I'm not even going to debate on your assertion that the majority of women use birth control pills to fight against ulcers, it's so ridiculous and just shows how some people are willing to bask in willful ignorance as long as they think they are right.

This is not even wrong.

Obviously, the rise has not happened yet, so I cannot use wizardry to produce the additional cost to companies. However, it is basic economic theory that if the insurance company has to pay more, the buyer of the insurance (the company) will have to foot the cost.

"Basic economic theory" as in basic mathematics devoid of any actual insight into the inner workings of the medical insurance business.

[Untaroicht]

God bless and give a cookie to those magnificent bastards at the supreme court, they're truly the place where tyranny goes to die, first protecting gun rights then protecting religious freedom!

[Andarro]

Who was the 'genius' that said birth control pills can prevent heart disease? Were they a doctor or a politician?

special commentary:
I would wager money that it was a politician. I do wish that people would stop investing so much trust with the snot nosed spoiled brat narcissistic ignoramuses that our politicians have become. They are complete failures ladies and gentlemen, they suck. Here we are in a country that has more accumulated debt then all the debt of the whole planet from the bronze age till now combined.

The FDA is investigating birth control pills that contain drospirenone, including YAZ and Yasmin. The decision is based on two new studies that suggest an increased risk for blood clots in women taking pills containing drospirenone, a man-made version of the hormone progesterone. Other brands containing drospirenone include Beyaz, Safyral, Gianvi, Loryna, Ocella, Syeda, and Zarah.

There are side effects of birth control pills, although the majority are not serious. They include:

Nausea
Weight gain
Sore or swollen breasts
Small amount of blood, or spotting, between periods
Lighter periods
Mood changes

The following symptoms may indicate a serious disorder, such as liver disease, gallbladder disease, stroke, blood clots, high blood pressure, or heart disease. They include:

Abdominal pain (stomach pain)
Chest pain
Headaches (severe)
Eye problems (blurred vision)
Swelling and/or aching in the legs and thighs

If anyone is in dire need of money they should ask their senators and congressmen to send them some money from their MRA (Member's Representational Allowance), since the MRA gives them $944,676 per year to hire 18 office assistants.

[Doitsu-san]

Again, making snarky comments with no contribution to the conversation, great job.

Well, at least since public listed companies have no free pass we will see the rise in insurance I predicted. Hopefully in 2016 things will change and the whole section will be repealed.

Not a great move to be snarky at a mod.

She has a point. You don't understand the effects of periods on women's health and well being.

Also, the "rise in insurance" because of the pill will not be that noticeable.

If you knew anything about insurance, it rises every year......

No, I am pretty sure I understand the affects of a period, and it has been something women have been living, and dealing with whilst still working, for tens of thousands of years. If you wish to alleviate the symptoms of the period (which have no major affect on wellbeing outside of pain and annoyance), you can buy the birth control pill yourself. The rise in insurance will still be a rise, and employers will still be footing the bill for other's sexual activity. That is fundamentally wrong, because employers should not pay for a completely optional activity.

[Farnhamia]

I don't have to provide sources as you made the claim most women don't use.....

The point is you don't know how women use the pill. Rather then making ignorant statements; look into the how the pill is used. It's more then just birth control.



Ok basic logic. Amount of female employees. Amount that would need the pill or want the pill......

I just want to facepalm so hard. I'm not even going to debate on your assertion that the majority of women use birth control pills to fight against ulcers, it's so ridiculous and just shows how some people are willing to bask in willful ignorance as long as they think they are right.

Obviously, the rise has not happened yet, so I cannot use wizardry to produce the additional cost to companies. However, it is basic economic theory that if the insurance company has to pay more, the buyer of the insurance (the company) will have to foot the cost.

The only flaw in your cost argument is that insurance policies already cover contraception. This case isn't about inventing a new kind of insurance policy, it's about making employers pay for existing ones.

[Ashmoria]

God bless and give a cookie to those magnificent bastards at the supreme court, they're truly the place where tyranny goes to die, first protecting gun rights then protecting religious freedom!

.... what about the religious freedom of the employees of hobby lobby?

[New Terricon]

Scotus rules in favour of Hobby Lobby

The US continues it's slow descend into an impoverished oligarchic corporate republic.

Stay classy, SCOTUS.

This is my answer to the decision:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpCY-pq-ipA

How can you be like that with such a name? If you were a real Russian Socialist Soviet State, you would boo the pro-religion movements like that. You are not worthy of your self-appointed title!

[Ashmoria]

Not a great move to be snarky at a mod.

She has a point. You don't understand the effects of periods on women's health and well being.

Also, the "rise in insurance" because of the pill will not be that noticeable.

If you knew anything about insurance, it rises every year......

No, I am pretty sure I understand the affects of a period, and it has been something women have been living, and dealing with whilst still working, for tens of thousands of years. If you wish to alleviate the symptoms of the period (which have no major affect on wellbeing outside of pain and annoyance), you can buy the birth control pill yourself. The rise in insurance will still be a rise, and employers will still be footing the bill for other's sexual activity. That is fundamentally wrong, because employers should not pay for a completely optional activity.

what other commonly insured but voluntary activities shouldn't be covered by insurance?

[Doitsu-san]

I just want to facepalm so hard. I'm not even going to debate on your assertion that the majority of women use birth control pills to fight against ulcers, it's so ridiculous and just shows how some people are willing to bask in willful ignorance as long as they think they are right.

Obviously, the rise has not happened yet, so I cannot use wizardry to produce the additional cost to companies. However, it is basic economic theory that if the insurance company has to pay more, the buyer of the insurance (the company) will have to foot the cost.

The only flaw in your cost argument is that insurance policies already cover contraception. This case isn't about inventing a new kind of insurance policy, it's about making employers pay for existing ones.

I never claimed that there would be a "new insurance policy invented", I claimed that making companies upgrade their policies would end up with the companies paying more. Which, again, is basic logic.

[Liriena]

Am I the only one who thinks it's sad that there's someone out there who roots for a corporation successfully lobbying for the power to impose their own religious values on their employees?

IMNTBHO

Geesh, talk about clunky acronyms.

your type of argument is the most stupid misdirection that has consistently been put forth by a lot posters in this matter.

Thank you.

The SCOTUS ruling, in no way, imposed a religious value on anyone and did not prohibit any woman from legally seeking and obtaining the contested birth-contol/abortive medications. They did not say that the woman couldn't opt out of employer provided healthcare insurance and pay Obamacare premiums. All SCOTUS ruled was a person or closely held corporation with religious values did not have to violate thier closely held religious beliefs and pay for (currently four) medications that could result in a fertilized and implanted egg being aborted.

In other words, SCOTUS ruled that the heads of closely held corporations have the power to pick and choose what medical treatment their employees may receive through the medical insurance they provide, depending on their religious values, rather than the employees'.

Thanks for confirming what I previously asserted.

[Saiwania]

You didn't answer the question.

My answer to the question is that people having a lot of kids is one of the reasons why they are poor to begin with, no matter how many contraceptives are provided to these people, some will continue to make detrimental decisions because of "religion" or because they're irresponsible. The government ought to be able to restrict them from costing the taxpayers so much.

[Liriena]

Who was the 'genius' that said birth control pills can prevent heart disease? Were they a doctor or a politician?

special commentary:
I would wager money that it was a politician. I do wish that people would stop investing so much trust with the snot nosed spoiled brat narcissistic ignoramuses that our politicians have become. They are complete failures ladies and gentlemen, they suck. Here we are in a country that has more accumulated debt then all the debt of the whole planet from the bronze age till now combined.

I see an awful lot of unfounded claims. Mind substantiating them?

[The Black Forrest]

Not a great move to be snarky at a mod.

She has a point. You don't understand the effects of periods on women's health and well being.

Also, the "rise in insurance" because of the pill will not be that noticeable.

If you knew anything about insurance, it rises every year......

No, I am pretty sure I understand the affects of a period, and it has been something women have been living, and dealing with whilst still working, for tens of thousands of years. If you wish to alleviate the symptoms of the period (which have no major affect on wellbeing outside of pain and annoyance), you can buy the birth control pill yourself. The rise in insurance will still be a rise, and employers will still be footing the bill for other's sexual activity. That is fundamentally wrong, because employers should not pay for a completely optional activity.

Wow. Again. Ignorance is not something to be proud.

[The Black Forrest]

No, I am pretty sure I understand the affects of a period, and it has been something women have been living, and dealing with whilst still working, for tens of thousands of years. If you wish to alleviate the symptoms of the period (which have no major affect on wellbeing outside of pain and annoyance), you can buy the birth control pill yourself. The rise in insurance will still be a rise, and employers will still be footing the bill for other's sexual activity. That is fundamentally wrong, because employers should not pay for a completely optional activity.

what other commonly insured but voluntary activities shouldn't be covered by insurance?

Err????? Viagra?

[Ashmoria]

The only flaw in your cost argument is that insurance policies already cover contraception. This case isn't about inventing a new kind of insurance policy, it's about making employers pay for existing ones.

I never claimed that there would be a "new insurance policy invented", I claimed that making companies upgrade their policies would end up with the companies paying more. Which, again, is basic logic.

contraceptive coverage saves money

[Doitsu-san]

No, I am pretty sure I understand the affects of a period, and it has been something women have been living, and dealing with whilst still working, for tens of thousands of years. If you wish to alleviate the symptoms of the period (which have no major affect on wellbeing outside of pain and annoyance), you can buy the birth control pill yourself. The rise in insurance will still be a rise, and employers will still be footing the bill for other's sexual activity. That is fundamentally wrong, because employers should not pay for a completely optional activity.

Wow. Again. Ignorance is not something to be proud.

Wow. Again. Calling people ignorant and not backing it up with evidence of why you think so is not something to be proud.