Hypocrisy

[Beebs52]

Bob Juch wrote:

No, the ACA didn't require an employer to provide birth control, they required all insurance policies to cover birth control. Hobby Lobby also objected to insurance plans covering "related education and counseling" for contraception. They didn't object to just four particular means of birth control but all means.

Are you aware Hobby Lobby used to have insurance that covered birth control? They terminated that policy just days before filing the Federal lawsuit.

So your argument is that the ACA did not require an employer to provide birth control, just insurance. Would you agree that under the regulations promulgated under the ACA, if they did not provide a policy with all FDA approved forms of birth control they could be fined hundreds of millions of dollars?

Would you also concede that Hobby Lobby sued because they objected to just 4 of the birth control drugs HHS required to be covered, not all birth control drug coverages.

Would you agree that french fries cooked in vegetable oil flavored with beef tallow are not vegan?

1) Yes
2) No
3) Yes

Here's part of "Hobby Lobby vs US":

52. As part of their religious obligations, the Green family also provides excellent
health insurance coverage to Hobby Lobby's and Mardďs employees through a self-
insured plan. As in other aspects of the business, the Greens believe it is imperative that
their employee benefits are consistent with their religious beliefs.

53. The Green family's religious beliefs prohibit them from deliberately providing
insurance coverage for prescription drugs or devices inconsistent with their faith, in
particular abortion-causing drugs and devices.

Note it doesn't limit their object to just abortion-causing drugs and devices and did not list four drugs. Later items say they also object to IUDs.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... ocument/p8
Here's the website.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

1) Yes
2) No
3) Yes

Here's part of "Hobby Lobby vs US":



Note it doesn't limit their object to just abortion-causing drugs and devices and did not list four drugs. Later items say they also object to IUDs.

See the majority opinion at page 14 last paragraph.

The Supreme Court majority actually went looking for support for their decision that was not brought up in arguments?

Ginsberg dissent page 24 last full paragraph

[Bob Juch]

See the majority opinion at page 14 last paragraph.

The Supreme Court majority actually went looking for support for their decision that was not brought up in arguments?

Ginsberg dissent page 24 last full paragraph

Are we looking at two different documents? I'm using the one in Beebs52's post before yours.

[Beebs52]

1) Yes
2) No
3) Yes

Here's part of "Hobby Lobby vs US":



Note it doesn't limit their object to just abortion-causing drugs and devices and did not list four drugs. Later items say they also object to IUDs.

See the majority opinion at page 14 last paragraph.

The Supreme Court majority actually went looking for support for their decision that was not brought up in arguments?

Where are you seeing this. Not that it matters. Sorta like Obamacare being determined to be a tax like thing. It is what it is.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

The Supreme Court majority actually went looking for support for their decision that was not brought up in arguments?

Ginsberg dissent page 24 last full paragraph

Are we looking at two different documents? I'm using the one in Beebs52's post before yours.

I am using the opinion at the US Supreme Court website
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 4_olp1.pdf using the pagination in the document.

[Bob Juch]

Ginsberg dissent page 24 last full paragraph

Are we looking at two different documents? I'm using the one in Beebs52's post before yours.

I am using the opinion at the US Supreme Court website
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 4_olp1.pdf using the pagination in the document.

We were on the same page physically but not logically. I wasn't responding in that post to the "4 drugs" but to the decision that the coverage requirement violated the RFRA which was not mentioned in the original filing. I assume that was brought up in arguments.

However, while on the subject, the entire contraception mandate was tossed out, not just the four drugs.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... rocedures/

[silverscreenselect]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... rocedures/

Other companies besides Hobby Lobby are affected by this ruling and some of them have a more expansive definition of what forms of contraception are now permissible under their religious beliefs (some Catholics believe that all forms of contraception violate their religious beliefs). There's nothing in this ruling that would prevent such claims, and, presumably, courts would have to honor them.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

12) What if my employer says it has a sincere religious belief in human sacrifice -- can he kill me?

Yes. If your employer has a deeply held religious belief in human sacrifice, they can strap you in a cage, reach into your chest with their bare hands to pull out your still-beating heart, then drop the cage into a fiery pit. It’s a tough break, but from time to time, the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots. Sorry about that.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... -questions

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... rocedures/

Other companies besides Hobby Lobby are affected by this ruling and some of them have a more expansive definition of what forms of contraception are now permissible under their religious beliefs (some Catholics believe that all forms of contraception violate their religious beliefs). There's nothing in this ruling that would prevent such claims, and, presumably, courts would have to honor them.

I thought you were a lawyer

[Bob Juch]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... rocedures/

Other companies besides Hobby Lobby are affected by this ruling and some of them have a more expansive definition of what forms of contraception are now permissible under their religious beliefs (some Catholics believe that all forms of contraception violate their religious beliefs). There's nothing in this ruling that would prevent such claims, and, presumably, courts would have to honor them.

I thought you were a lawyer

Yes, and lawyers are always right.

[ne1410s]

I guess we should be glad that Christian Scientists don't run more corporations.

[Bob Juch]

[BackInTex]

Looks like SSS in the background. At least that's how I picture him if someone around is holding a gun.

[silverscreenselect]

Looks like SSS in the background. At least that's how I picture him if someone around is holding a gun.

And this is how I picture BiT:

[BackInTex]

Looks like SSS in the background. At least that's how I picture him if someone around is holding a gun.

And this is how I picture BiT:

No. I am about as anti-tat as you can get. You'll have to find another picture.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Since "reproductive rights" in this context means getting someone else to pay for their birth control, I guess that woman with a gun is robbing someone.

[silverscreenselect]

No. I am about as anti-tat as you can get. You'll have to find another picture.

But we all know that when you get them guns in your hands, your mind starts working differently.

[BackInTex]

No. I am about as anti-tat as you can get. You'll have to find another picture.

But we all know that when you get them guns in your hands, your mind starts working differently.

No, my mind pretty much works the same all the time.

[Bob Juch]

No. I am about as anti-tat as you can get. You'll have to find another picture.

But we all know that when you get them guns in your hands, your mind starts working differently.

No, my mind pretty much works the same all the time.

Too bad.

[Bob Juch]

Since "reproductive rights" in this context means getting someone else to pay for their birth control, I guess that woman with a gun is robbing someone.

They're not asking someone else to pay for it. They're asking it be an employment benefit, the same as all the others.

[BackInTex]

They're not asking someone else to pay for it. They're asking it be an employment benefit, the same as all the others.

You were never good at word problems, were you?

[Bob Juch]

They're not asking someone else to pay for it. They're asking it be an employment benefit, the same as all the others.

You were never good at word problems, were you?

Who do you think pays for it?

[Bob Juch]

Looks like SSS in the background. At least that's how I picture him if someone around is holding a gun.

And this is how I picture BiT:

No. I am about as anti-tat as you can get. You'll have to find another picture.

How about this one?

Spoiler

A Texas man accused of killing six people, including four children, was turned away by a teenager when he first went to the victims' home, but he returned a short time later, kicked in the door, tied up the family and then shot them in the head execution style, according to court testimony today.

Ron Haskell, 33, was charged with capital murder following his arrest after a long standoff with police in Spring, Texas.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

That is despicable even for you