SC Weighs Obamacare Contraceptive Mandate

It is not in the Constitution. Period. The contraceptive portion of ACA is being reviewed to determine if it is constitutional. The whole point of the thread.

Does the executive branch have constitutional authority to write law or amend law without Congress?

Why does it matter if a corporation cannot vote? It cannot take a crap either, but it still has freedoms to operate within federal, state and local laws.

The only way ACA got through the Supreme Court was by loosely calling the individual mandate a "tax" which the administration said it wasn't until getting its day in court. The law will eventually be massively amended or repealed - it is inevitable. The President has already made 39 illegal changes to the law, it is failing to gather enough paying customers and the American public overwhelming dislikes the law - Paso, 35 and PharmD excluded.
 
I am name calling? You might recheck the thread sequence (as if).

And you have no opinion?

Wow.

I would not take the case for Hobby Lobby. I agree with Deez (or he agrees with me). A for-profit corporation has no "faith". This is just a frivolous claim. A corporation is created by state law and should comply with all laws. The same government that created it could eliminate it. It is not a person.

It reflects just how far to the right the Supreme Court is that this claim would even be treated seriously.

And then to top it off, the burden on religion must be a substantial one. But this is not the religion of the actual human being or beings, but the soulless separate legal entity. You know the entity that has never attended church. This separate entity that shields the owner or owners from all sorts of legal responsibility for what it does. The same owner or owners who gladly accept this shield from legal and financial responsibility for all sorts of matters now want their own personal and independent belief or faith to apply to this separate legal entity.

They could have run the business as a sole proprietorship (meaning no incorporation). This would expose them personally to legal and financial responsibility. I would find their argument that the business could reflect their faith or values far more persuasive (and would take the case). I still think showing a substantial burden would be problematic, but this would not be a frivolous argument.
 
I am not the "best" in a case that I think is frivolous.

This is a proxy for retrying the ACA (or chipping aways at it).

It is obvious that the laypeople on here want to retry it. You do not get to do this no matter how much you hold your breathe and stomp your feet.

The ACA is constitutional. It is the law. Hobby Lobby, Inc. should comply or pay the fine.

The owner can continue to not use contraceptives and the employees should have the freedom to decide whether they take advantage of the expanded coverage or not. They certainly can exercise their faith and decide to decline (or accept) the free coverage.

As an aside, my new insurance under the ACA covers my generic prescriptions for "free". I am not sure if this was because of the ACA, but it is nice.
 
The legal issue does not directly involve the ACA. The legal issue is whether the contraceptive mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

This is where the "substantial burden" comes into play (because it is a requirement under the RFRA). This is also where the question of whether a for-profit corporation can even have a "religion" or "faith" comes into play.

The efficacy of the ACA is not an issue.

I get that the Right is still trying to get rid of Social Security. It does not mean I have much tolerance for it.
 
There are also serious health benefits from contraceptives apart from avoiding pregnancy.

Does this matter at all?

What if the woman was taking contraceptives for these other benefits, how does this impact the analysis?
 
If I understand what Hobby Lobby is objecting to it is not all contraceptives. In fact aren't there something 16 other contraceptives that HL is willing to pay for?


Edit to ask
what are the ' serious health benefits "from Plan B or the IUD ?
 
The contraceptives being objected to are not the same drugs prescribed for conditions like endometriosis, etc. They have narrowed their objection to a few drugs used for aborting pregnancies.

I hear beer and wine have good health benefits when used in moderation and some physicians actually recommend their use. Maybe we can get these added to the list?

I am not surprised you are happy with "free" generics. Liberals love when somebody else pays for their hand outs.
 
I pay $519 a month for my health insurance for myself and my child so your claim that I get or want something for free is as off base as everything else you have posted on this thread.

I pay less now than I did before the ACA, but I still pay. The generics were about $40 a month last year.
 
Paso
No one is disputing this
"There are also serious health benefits from contraceptives apart from avoiding pregnancy.


But again
what are the serious health benefits from Plan B and IUD?
Those are the drugs and methods Bobby Lobby objects to
NOT the 16 other BS drug they have included on their plan
 
Your words, not mine:

"As an aside, my new insurance under the ACA covers my generic prescriptions for "free". I am not sure if this was because of the ACA, but it is nice. "

You can tell you come from the "I never said you can keep your doctor" crowd.
 
Do you know what quote marks mean?

Figures.

laugh.gif
 
I kept my same doctor. I had to pay a couple hundred dollars more a month for a silver PPO so my "savings" (there are those zany quote marks again meaning there is something more to the story) are only about $5,500 a year instead of about $8,000 a year.

Thank you, Obama.
 
I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. You said it, but I guess you really, really did not mean it.

I did not find "corporation" nor did I find "individual mandate", "employer provided health insurance", "contraceptives" or a general recommendation to seek a liberal opinion on what was constitutional.

Again, remind me where it states the executive branch can make and amend law?
 
Why not get hobby lobby to donate a couple million to the democrats then they would be eligible for an exemption from the ACA
 
PASO?
Paso
No one is disputing this
"There are also serious health benefits from contraceptives apart from avoiding pregnancy.


But again
what are the serious health benefits from Plan B and IUD?

Those are the drugs and methods Bobby Lobby objects to
NOT the 16 other BS drug they have included on their plan ?
 
Plan B delays or can delay ovulation thereby eliminating the need for an abortion. It also makes it more difficult for sperm to travel. This has the health benefit of avoiding pregnancy and/or avoiding an abortion.

Abortion is not covered under the ACA and it is, in fact, specifically excluded.

I cannot help it that you guys (and Hobby Lobby) get your science wrong on how these contraceptives function.

Do I need to explain how an IUD works too?

Why can't we leave this to the doctor and their patient?

This sure would seem to be where the discussion and consideration should be. I do not consider this to be my province, but it should be up to the patient, FDA, and the doctor not Hobby Lobby.
 
I may be wrong (as I am one of those lefties you deride), but it seems to me that the point Pasotex is trying to make is that the law has been passed, the Supreme Court has ruled on its constitutionality, therefore it is constitutional.

It is an either/or: it is either constitutional or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled it NOT unconstitutional, therefore ...
 
It is interesting because I did actually learn something on this thread.

Hobby Lobby and Conestoga (sp?) are not objecting to the provision of all birth control just certain types of birth control. I did not know this until this thread.

I still think they are wrong (for the two reasons I have already identified in addition to being wrong about how they function), but they are making a pretty narrow argument against some very specific forms of birth control.

Certain Catholic business owners would not be nearly so narrow and they will be next if this nonsense happens.
 
I believe of the three categories of drugs Hobby Lobby seeks an exemption for, two - IUDs and ella - definitely cause abortions (in fact, the EMEA study on ella indicated that it causes abortion in 60-70% of cases) and one - Plan B - is argued to cause abortion by some scientists. This particular case is not about contraceptives, it's about abortion to Hobby Lobby. And of the Baptist faith, few issues are less burdensome.
 
oasoFirst you say this
""There are also serious health benefits from contraceptives apart from avoiding pregnancy."

and we all agree. As there are at least 16 birth control drugs Hobby Lobby is ok with they likely agree as well that there are "serious health benefits apart for avoiding pregnancy

Yet when asked to explain what serious health benefits
aside from avoiding pregnancy
you can't.
This is not a health benefit aside from avoiding pregnancy

You::"This has the health benefit of avoiding pregnancy and/or avoiding an abortion."
 
wow

100 internets for an irrelevant point

there are health benefits to avoiding a pregnancy and/or an abortion

this method is not an abortion

but wow you win the entire debate because of this irrelevant point

go West Mall

catfight.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top