You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
The issue in this case is that the ACA granted the HHA rule making authority, and the HHA adopted a contraceptive mandate. HHA granted exemptions to religious non-profits. If you work for a religious non-profit that refuses to cover contraceptives, you can obtain contraceptive coverage as follows:
"an eligible organization [one that declines to provide contraceptive coverage on religious grounds] must provide a copy of its self-certification
to its third party administrator. The third party administrator must
then provide or arrange separate payments for contraceptive services for
the women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the
women or to the organization. [emphasis added] The costs of such payments can be offset
by adjustments in Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees paid by a
health insurance issuer with which the third party administration has an
arrangement."
The issue in the Hobby Lobby case was whether the government's compelling interest in providing contraceptive coverage to women through the HHS mandate met with the strict scrutiny standard required under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Court in its ruling yesterday said no, because a less restrictive means of achieving that compelling interest was possible as demonstrated through the exemptions granted to religious non-profits. In other words, before government can burden the free exercise of religion, it must have a compelling interest and the burden must be minimally restrictive.
It's fine if you want to argue that the shareholders of closely held corporations shouldn't be allowed to make business decisions that keep in line with their individually held religious views. The majority opinion explicitly said the opinion could not be read expansively to include publicly traded corporations, and the issue of whether contraception should be available at all was simply not at issue. What the court was saying is that closely held corporations should be granted the same exemption that religious non-profits have been given by the HHS. Women who work for such organizations will be able to obtain the contraceptive coverage they desire...for free.
Please right leaning wackos, keep on keeping on with this nonsense against women. "Enrage and motivate the female voter to turn out in droves" has always been a huge win for the right. I am sure it will work out great for you!
IDK about you but I'll be taking election day off to drive people to the polls if I have to at this point.
You can write the script already. Any even vaguely moderate Republican with a chance will need to move so far to the right to get out of the primary that it will be an epic failure come the national election. It never ever works, and they keep plugging away at it. Coupled with a viable female Democratic candidate, and the whole think is actually insane.
The issue in this case is that the ACA granted the HHA rule making authority, and the HHA adopted a contraceptive mandate. HHA granted exemptions to religious non-profits. If you work for a religious non-profit that refuses to cover contraceptives, you can obtain contraceptive coverage as follows:
"an eligible organization [one that declines to provide contraceptive coverage on religious grounds] must provide a copy of its self-certification
to its third party administrator. The third party administrator must
then provide or arrange separate payments for contraceptive services for
the women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the
women or to the organization. [emphasis added] The costs of such payments can be offset
by adjustments in Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees paid by a
health insurance issuer with which the third party administration has an
arrangement."
The issue in the Hobby Lobby case was whether the government's compelling interest in providing contraceptive coverage to women through the HHS mandate met with the strict scrutiny standard required under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Court in its ruling yesterday said no, because a less restrictive means of achieving that compelling interest was possible as demonstrated through the exemptions granted to religious non-profits. In other words, before government can burden the free exercise of religion, it must have a compelling interest and the burden must be minimally restrictive.
It's fine if you want to argue that the shareholders of closely held corporations shouldn't be allowed to make business decisions that keep in line with their individually held religious views. The majority opinion explicitly said the opinion could not be read expansively to include publicly traded corporations, and the issue of whether contraception should be available at all was simply not at issue. What the court was saying is that closely held corporations should be granted the same exemption that religious non-profits have been given by the HHS. Women who work for such organizations will be able to obtain the contraceptive coverage they desire...for free.
Yes, and this is a problem.
A closely held corporation is NOT a religious non-profit.
A corporation is not a person.
A corporation is a legal entity created solely for taxation purposes.
If HL wants to have the same rights and privileges as a religious non-profit, they should be a religious non-profit.
Absolutely ridiculous ruling by SCOTUS and Ginsberg had the right of it in her dissent.
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
Don't like your employer or their coverage do a little research and find a job that fits your needs.
Or go on the open exchange and get your own insurance.
I don't think its right to force a business to pay for things that offend their beliefs.
Curious what your thoughts are about how HL is making money off these products? If they are so ethically against these products for religious reasons, why are they OK investing in and supporting the manufacturers of these products as a shareholder?
Still waiting...because I'm extremely curious about your thoughts on how HL is seemingly picking and choosing when to apply their religious beliefs.
I will throw my opinion out there. I haven't studied this, so this is based on my understanding.
I believe that a non-profit religious organization should have the right not to offer contraception. If I chose to work for an Archdiocese of the Catholic Church, I would fully understand that contraception is fundamentally against their beliefs, and I will not be getting any BCP paid for.
However, if you go to work for an organization that is historically Catholic - for example, Georgetown University or a Caritas Christie hospital - the same rules should not apply.
Allowing private corporations "religious freedom" to cherry pick their benefits is frightening. And I tend to be more on the conservative end of the spectrum (fiscally, not socially, and both drive my voting). So, as I understand the decision, I'm afraid.
It's broad, but it's my opinion. Flame away...
When those religious organizations stop lobbying to get laws passed to push their religion on others, I will agree. That is actually a part of their tax exempt status that is not at all enforced.
If they want to play in the political arena with their religious beliefs, then they pay taxes.
I agree that they shouldn't be lobbying to pass broad-based laws, but they should be able to protect their own freedom. Lobbying for an exemption to a law based on very specific criteria is one thing. Pushing for no reproductive rights for any women anywhere is different.
Pushing for no reproductive rights would out them for the POSs they are. So, they do it slowly and disguise it as "religious freedom" and "pro-life".
Harry Styles = Life Ruiner
There’s a lightningin your eyes I can't deny Then there’s me inside a sinkingboat running out of time Without you I'll never make it out alive But I know, yes, I know we’ll be alright
Kang: Hmmm...Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
[crowd cheers and waves minature flags]
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
Don't like your employer or their coverage do a little research and find a job that fits your needs.
Or go on the open exchange and get your own insurance.
I don't think its right to force a business to pay for things that offend their beliefs.
Curious what your thoughts are about how HL is making money off these products? If they are so ethically against these products for religious reasons, why are they OK investing in and supporting the manufacturers of these products as a shareholder?
Still waiting...because I'm extremely curious about your thoughts on how HL is seemingly picking and choosing when to apply their religious beliefs.
I wouldn't hold your breath Rocky. It's obvious we're just pissed about lack of abortions.
True. I was hopeful when I saw the influx of comments...I truly am curious how someone can so passionately defend and believe in HL, but not take issue with the fact that they support these companies.
The issue in this case is that the ACA granted the HHA rule making authority, and the HHA adopted a contraceptive mandate. HHA granted exemptions to religious non-profits. If you work for a religious non-profit that refuses to cover contraceptives, you can obtain contraceptive coverage as follows:
"an eligible organization [one that declines to provide contraceptive coverage on religious grounds] must provide a copy of its self-certification
to its third party administrator. The third party administrator must
then provide or arrange separate payments for contraceptive services for
the women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the
women or to the organization. [emphasis added] The costs of such payments can be offset
by adjustments in Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees paid by a
health insurance issuer with which the third party administration has an
arrangement."
The issue in the Hobby Lobby case was whether the government's compelling interest in providing contraceptive coverage to women through the HHS mandate met with the strict scrutiny standard required under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Court in its ruling yesterday said no, because a less restrictive means of achieving that compelling interest was possible as demonstrated through the exemptions granted to religious non-profits. In other words, before government can burden the free exercise of religion, it must have a compelling interest and the burden must be minimally restrictive.
It's fine if you want to argue that the shareholders of closely held corporations shouldn't be allowed to make business decisions that keep in line with their individually held religious views. The majority opinion explicitly said the opinion could not be read expansively to include publicly traded corporations, and the issue of whether contraception should be available at all was simply not at issue. What the court was saying is that closely held corporations should be granted the same exemption that religious non-profits have been given by the HHS. Women who work for such organizations will be able to obtain the contraceptive coverage they desire...for free.
1. I appreciate your well thought out response.
2. What the court was saying is that closely held corporations should be
granted the same exemption that religious non-profits have been given by
the HHS.It is my opinion that they should not because it opens the door for closely held corporations to hide behind religion to make medical choices, without medical degrees, to save on costs. It also opens the door to allow for closely held corporations to discriminate (gender and race all have medical conditions that are specific to them) and hide behind religion as the reason. And, finally, it violates one of the primary foundations this country was founded on - a separation of church and state.
3.Women who work for such organizations will be able to obtain the contraceptive coverage they desire...for free. It is not for free because it is Federally funded by tax dollars (something that a lot of these corporations are fundamentally against), this maybe the aspect that is fought next, and it only is written to include BC, not any of the other illnesses and treatments that are going to be coming up from this decision soon.
Earlier today, five men agreed that closely held corporations with anti-birth control religious beliefs cannot be required to provide contraceptive coverage to female employees. Corporations are people, my friend. Women? Not so much.
The decision to declare women Unpeople was a narrow one; the five men agreed that corporations (people) shouldn't be able to use Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby to justify discriminating against anyone except women (lesser people-ish entities), and won't be able to use it to deny other health care besides contraception. The same religious exemption to the Affordable Care Act that applies to nonprofit organizations also applies to for-profit companies controlled by a small group of people who think birth control is black magic. This ruling applies to whore pills only. Not to blood transfusions, AIDS retrovirals, vaccines, treating infections caused by getting a SATAN RULES tattoo with an infected needle at an unsafe tattoo parlor, antibiotics purchased to fight off a nasty case of the clap caught while raw dogging a stranger in a bar bathroom. Just birth control. No matter why a woman needs it.
The five men also agreed that their ruling only applies to corporations (people) with "sincerely held" religious beliefs. You know, the kind of religious beliefs that are so sincerely anti-birth control that they invest in and profit from companies that manufacture birth control. The kind of religious beliefs that cite as justification for their beliefs a series of religious texts written before Western Medicine as we know it existed.
If corporations are people then why can't I punch one in the fucking face?
Today, five men on the Supreme Court said that women's reproductive health care is less important than a woman's boss's superstition-based prudery and moral trepidation about fornication for female pleasure. They ruled that it doesn't matter if birth control actually causes abortions; it only matters if business owners sincerely believe that birth control causes abortions. They ruled that it's okay for a corporate person to discriminate against a female semi-person and dictate that she not spend her compensation on stuff that might possibly be enabling sex without consequences, if they believe that God thinks they should. Female semi-persons who work for these company-persons can simply obtain their birth control directly through the government, say the five men of the Supreme Court, the same way female employees of religious-based nonprofits are supposed to (religious-based nonprofits, by the way, have mounted challenges to signing a piece of paper indicating that they object to birth control, because that objection would indirectly sanction their whoreployees' birth control by admitting that they weren't getting it through work. So we've got that legal clusterfuck to look forward to, now).
The five men of the Supreme Court made pains to specify that this only applies to bosses who specifically object to women who want to use a portion of their compensation to obtain a pharmaceutical that will help them not get pregnant. But the actual women of the Supreme Court — each of whom joined in dissenting from the majority Five Man Opinion — see things differently.
In a dissent I'm bound by SCOTUS commentary tradition to call "blistering," Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the decision "of startling breadth" that could unleash "havoc" on American society (in fact, Mother Jones surmises that 90% of all American businesses fit the criteria to be classified as "closely-held corporations," so, gird your loins, ladies. Literally). She wrote that for-profit companies, unlike nonprofits, don't exist to further an agenda beyond money making and therefore cannot be said to have religious beliefs, and points out that one of the forms of birth control objected to by the fact-ignoring folks at Conestoga Wood and Hobby Lobby is the IUD, which, if purchased and installed without the help of insurance, would cost about as much as a woman earning minimum wage would make in a month. "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield," she wrote.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby (and its all-female legal team) today, I suspect, because there simply aren't enough women in positions of power to counter the latest attack on contraception from the right. There aren't enough people in government — or on the Court — who know personally what it feels like to be a low-income woman who does not want to become pregnant.
None of the five men behind the majority ruling have have ever suffered from endometriosis, painful periods, dangerous pregnancies, or simply risked becoming pregnant at a time that they weren't mentally, fiscally, or physically prepared for a pregnancy. They bought Hobby Lobby's "RELIGIOUS LIBERTY!" argument despite the fact that Hobby Lobby doesn't personally object to covering vasectomies for men; their religion only applies slut panic to women. The Court won't classify Hobby Lobby's woman-only scientifically illiterate objections to contraception as "discrimination" against women. But it would be discrimination if Hobby Lobby's religious objections applied to black people or gay people. Are you following? Me neither.
Who would have guessed five schlubby law nerds would be capable of such a stunning display of mental gymnastics?
For years, it seems that the men who run things in this country have been dancing around the implication that women aren't people, at least when put up against other, more important things like men, corporations, zygotes, and male feelings. But now, finally, in the year 2014, two generations removed from the first Supreme Court case that established that states can't make it illegal to purchase contraception, five dudes on the highest court in the land have put this in writing. It's not that women don't matter, it's that they matter measurably less than a corporation's "conscience."
But everything isn't bleak doom and gloom. Not yet, at least. Women are lucky that they have Justices Beyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Bader Ginsburg in their corner (NEVER DIE, RUTH BADER GINSBURG!). Some pundits are speculating that this legal clusterfuck serves to further justify permanently decoupling health care coverage with employment at some point down the road. Others are hopeful that this case, the judicial abortion that I sincerely believe that it is, will galvanize women (and men) who don't like their bosses all up in their shit to actually vote this November.
Your boss can't stop you from doing that.
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
A closely held corporation is NOT a religious non-profit.
A corporation is not a person.
A corporation is a legal entity created solely for taxation purposes.
If HL wants to have the same rights and privileges as a religious non-profit, they should be a religious non-profit.
Absolutely ridiculous ruling by SCOTUS and Ginsberg had the right of it in her dissent.
A corporation is not a natural person, true. No one disputes this. But, corporate personhood is a legal fiction with a very long history in this country. Our Court has simply been expanding the benefits of corporate personhood in the last decade or so. (FWIW, corporations are not formed merely for tax purposes.) Traditionally, constitutional rights are not afforded to corporations as such rights are individual. But this was not a First Amendment case - it was decided under RFRA, which does not define person as only natural persons. The case really seems to turn on the closely held aspect of their corporate structure - there are a limited number of individual shareholders whose religious views are ascertainable. Thus, as persons, they are entitled to protection under the RFRA, even when they have incorporated.
"3.Women who work for such organizations will be able to obtain the contraceptive coverage they desire...for free. It
is not for free because it is Federally funded by tax dollars
(something that a lot of these corporations are fundamentally against),
this maybe the aspect that is fought next, and it only is written to
include BC, not any of the other illnesses and treatments that are going
to be coming up from this decision soon"
Where I see the attack coming next is whether the government has a compelling interest in mandating contraceptive coverage at all.
I do think the compromise to give an exemption to religious non-profits created an issue for the government in arguing the mandate - they never really had a "good" rebuttal as to why the same program couldn't be there for corporations. I still don't think any corporation is a person, and I think the 5 justices used that program/exemption as an excuse.
Just because the opinion states it should not be read broadly, does not mean that it won't open up the door for some skilled, and not so skilled, lawyers to argue that the principles behind it apply to a wide variety of issues and mandates. Again, this isn't really the end of the debate
@PrivacyWanted - so what do you think the answer is? Not trying to be argumentative, I'm genuinely curious.
I'm Catholic. I don't believe in many of the Church's stances (BCP/abortion being among the top areas of disagreement), but I believe that they have a right to say that they're not going to provide that coverage to their employees. Taking away that right would, in my eyes, absolutely crush the ideas of freedom of religion.
Again, there are many for-profit agencies associated with the Church, and they should be removed from this sort of consideration (or lose the right to any sort of federal funding, like research grants or federally subsidized student loans to students who choose to attend). The line feels blurry now, but I don't think it has to be.
A closely held corporation is NOT a religious non-profit.
A corporation is not a person.
A corporation is a legal entity created solely for taxation purposes.
If HL wants to have the same rights and privileges as a religious non-profit, they should be a religious non-profit.
Absolutely ridiculous ruling by SCOTUS and Ginsberg had the right of it in her dissent.
A corporation is not a natural person, true. No one disputes this. But, corporate personhood is a legal fiction with a very long history in this country. Our Court has simply been expanding the benefits of corporate personhood in the last decade or so. (FWIW, corporations are not formed merely for tax purposes.) Traditionally, constitutional rights are not afforded to corporations as such rights are individual. But this was not a First Amendment case - it was decided under RFRA, which does not define person as only natural persons. The case really seems to turn on the closely held aspect of their corporate structure - there are a limited number of individual shareholders whose religious views are ascertainable. Thus, as persons, they are entitled to protection under the RFRA, even when they have incorporated.
"3.Women who work for such organizations will be able to obtain the contraceptive coverage they desire...for free. It
is not for free because it is Federally funded by tax dollars
(something that a lot of these corporations are fundamentally against),
this maybe the aspect that is fought next, and it only is written to
include BC, not any of the other illnesses and treatments that are going
to be coming up from this decision soon"
Where I see the attack coming next is whether the government has a compelling interest in mandating contraceptive coverage at all.
And the bolded is a huge HUGE problem.
A corporation is not a person, period. It does not deserve to have the same rights as a living, breathing human being.
What's next? Are corporations going to be able to form their own standing armies? Punish whistleblowers by claiming the 5th Amendment? Claim that their financial records are privileged information under the 4th?
This is a major slippery slope that SCOTUS just pushed us down. We could've worked around Citizens United but with yesterday's ruling we're well on our way to corporations having more rights under the constitution than the the average US citizen.
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
I really want to know what field she's in that she and 90% of her friends can quit their jobs right now and have another one within a day or two.
I need to be in that field.
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
Oh yes, because getting a new job is SO easy. What stellar advice!
For people with marketable talents getting a job is quote easy.
I could change jobs tomorrow if I wanted to without breaking a sweat as could 90% of my friends and colueges.
Seriously, FUCK YOU. not everyone is able to go to school to get marketable talents. Doesn't mean they should be stuck with whatever shitty insurance their shitty employer provides.
Harry Styles = Life Ruiner
There’s a lightningin your eyes I can't deny Then there’s me inside a sinkingboat running out of time Without you I'll never make it out alive But I know, yes, I know we’ll be alright
"3.Women who work for such organizations will be able to obtain the contraceptive coverage they desire...for free. It
is not for free because it is Federally funded by tax dollars
(something that a lot of these corporations are fundamentally against),
this maybe the aspect that is fought next, and it only is written to
include BC, not any of the other illnesses and treatments that are going
to be coming up from this decision soon"
Where I see the attack coming next is whether the government has a compelling interest in mandating contraceptive coverage at all.
Well we are in agreement that it will be an attack, but I absolutely think there is a compelling interest for mandating contraceptive coverage. There is no medical reason not to, especially since it has never been a debate as to whether a man's vasectomy would be covered. Also, to the point that only 30% of contraceptives are being prescribed to function as a contraceptive and are instead being used for other medical purposes - ruling out the mandate would be discriminatory against not only women, but to those with medical conditions that need to be treated with contraceptives.
Other than moral and religious objections - what reasons would excluding coverage be needed?
I just wait for people like SoM... whatever, to meet karma. It will happen.
Maybe some day she, or her daughter, friend, relative, will have debilitating ovarian cysts or an ectopic pregnancy. It'll be a shame when her insurance won't cover the costs to treat, because years before SCOTUS ruined women's rights.
you dont need the morning after pill or plan B to treat ovarian cysts. Thats just plain birth control which HL already pays for now. BCP dont treat an ectopic pregnancy that's typically surgery and a medical emergency which is a totally different discussion.
Sex isn't a basic right. It's a choice. Their health insurance covers birth control pills. And at $14 an hour their workers can afford a back up box of condoms as needed.
lolno. I'm pretty sure you're average HL worker doesn't make $14/hour.
And condoms do nothing to help medical issues that can be alleviated with several of the "banned" BC options.
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
I keep hearing this "sex isn't a basic right" thing.
Didn't I learn in biology class that sex is a biological need? Am I remembering health class wrong??
Sex is a basic right.
But you better keep your legs closed, whores, if you want to take BCP because whores.
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
I keep hearing this "sex isn't a basic right" thing.
Didn't I learn in biology class that sex is a biological need? Am I remembering health class wrong??
Sex is a basic right.
But you better keep your legs closed, whores, if you want to take BCP because whores.
Just had a FB "friend" tell me that since I can't take hormonal BCP and since I have a temporary medical condition that would make pregnancy life threatening that I should just get a tubal or get a divorce and never have sex again. Couldn't hit the unfriend button fast enough.
Oh yes, because getting a new job is SO easy. What stellar advice!
For people with marketable talents getting a job is quote easy.
I could change jobs tomorrow if I wanted to without breaking a sweat as could 90% of my friends and colueges.
Seriously, FUCK YOU. not everyone is able to go to school to get marketable talents. Doesn't mean they should be stuck with whatever shitty insurance their shitty employer provides.
YES! I went to fucking medical school and 6 year of residency and I have been looking for a job for 2 years and I can't find a job without moving (and then my husband wouldn't have a job)
AND I worked for a hospital where NO birth control was covered even if you had PCOS or endo or some other medical need. I was fortunate enough to be able to afford the $100 out of pocket every month but not everybody is.
Me: 37 DH: 45 BFP #1 3/19/14 EDD 11/29/14 MMC D&C 4/24/14 BFP #2 12/4/14 Beta #1 218 at 12dpo Beta #2 1055 at 16dpo Saw heartbeat 12/29. Please be a rainbow.
I just wait for people like SoM... whatever, to meet karma. It will happen.
Maybe some day she, or her daughter, friend, relative, will have debilitating ovarian cysts or an ectopic pregnancy. It'll be a shame when her insurance won't cover the costs to treat, because years before SCOTUS ruined women's rights.
you dont need the morning after pill or plan B to treat ovarian cysts. Thats just plain birth control which HL already pays for now. BCP dont treat an ectopic pregnancy that's typically surgery and a medical emergency which is a totally different discussion.
Sex isn't a basic right. It's a choice. Their health insurance covers birth control pills. And at $14 an hour their workers can afford a back up box of condoms as needed.
They do use what some people have named the abortion pill for ectopic pregnancies that are caught in time to save the fallopian tube, and that was one of the pills that was of issue here.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.
The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception. […]
The justices also ordered lower courts that ruled in favor of the Obama administration to reconsider those decisions in light of Monday's 5-4 decision.
lolno. I'm pretty sure you're average HL worker doesn't make $14/hour.
The minimum wage for their full-time hourly employees is in fact $14/hour and $9.50/hour for its part-time employees.
From what I understand, HL frequently keeps their "full-time" employees at part time hours so they don't have to pay benefits.
So there's that.
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
I'd love to see some hard numbers on how many actually get full time. because yeah, Walmart. Color me skeptical.
No idea. The articles I've seen say more than 40% are full time. There are so many other aspects of their corporate culture that turn me off that worrying about their use of part-time employment when they pay above minimum wage in either case is pretty low on the priority list for me.
Also, let's be real. Hobby Lobby has a vested interest in keeping women with few options barefoot, pregnant and selling stupid ass crafts in their esty shops.
I'm half kidding.
If I swung that way, I would be half in love with you for that comment. I actually laughed, and I'm having the shittiest of shitty days.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.
The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception. […]
The justices also ordered lower courts that ruled in favor of the Obama administration to reconsider those decisions in light of Monday's 5-4 decision.
Not to mention Plan B is no more of an "abortion pill" than regular BCPs. I get science is not the strong suit of this crowd, but how the fuck does that just slide by?
The lower court cases are from a lot of Catholic organizations who oppose the contraception mandate entirely based on Catholic teaching regarding artificial birth control. As I understand it, the Court is simply saying that yesterday's decision didn't turn on the methods of birth control to which Hobby Lobby objected, but rather on whether the underlying religious belief from which the objection is formed is burdened by the mandate.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.
The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception. […]
The justices also ordered lower courts that ruled in favor of the Obama administration to reconsider those decisions in light of Monday's 5-4 decision.
Not to mention Plan B is no more of an "abortion pill" than regular BCPs. I get science is not the strong suit of this crowd, but how the fuck does that just slide by?
The lower court cases are from a lot of Catholic organizations who oppose the contraception mandate entirely based on Catholic teaching regarding artificial birth control. As I understand it, the Court is simply saying that yesterday's decision didn't turn on the methods of birth control to which Hobby Lobby objected, but rather on whether the underlying religious belief from which the objection is formed is burdened by the mandate.
The whole religious exemption thing is frustrating, even for religious organizations. Back in the 90's, I was prescribed birth control as a teenager for purely medical reasons. I was a long way from being sexually active. A few years later, my father went to work for our local catholic diocese (my parents are catholic). My parents also owned a small business, which my mom managed, so our only benefit options were through my father. I remember my parents getting a letter one day stating his work would stop covering my birth control because it went against Catholic beliefs. I remember being angry, and somewhat ashamed as a teenager, that I had to work with my parents and my doctor to get medical paperwork in about something so personal and have a group of men approve coverage for this. And we were far from well off, so paying out of pocket would not have been easy. And no, switching jobs is not always an option. My father only had a high school education and worked at a factory most of his life. He was beyond thrilled when he got this job with the diocese.
I'm so sorry you and your family had to go through that nonsense.
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
Sex isn't a basic right. It's a choice. Their health insurance covers birth control pills. And at $14 an hour their workers can afford a back up box of condoms as needed.
Um, the right to reproduce (i.e. have sex that may product babies) is considered a basic human right by many reasonable human beings. The alternative is called eugenics.
WHO's definition of reproductive rights:
Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.[2]
...unless of course you work for HL, because their rights as a Christian company supercede your right to make these decisions free of discrimination.
I just wait for people like SoM... whatever, to meet karma. It will happen.
Maybe some day she, or her daughter, friend, relative, will have debilitating ovarian cysts or an ectopic pregnancy. It'll be a shame when her insurance won't cover the costs to treat, because years before SCOTUS ruined women's rights.
you dont need the morning after pill or plan B to treat ovarian cysts. Thats just plain birth control which HL already pays for now. BCP dont treat an ectopic pregnancy that's typically surgery and a medical emergency which is a totally different discussion.
Sex is a choice. Their health insurance covers birth control pills. and most people who work can afford a back up box of condoms as needed.
::STUCK IN THE BOX::
What about women like me who can't take hormonal birth control and need to avoid pregnancy due to the risk of serious (life threatening) complications. The best option for me is ParaGard. I can't afford to pay that out of pocket, so I'm pretty sure a cashier at HL can't afford it either. So I guess we can just take a risk and use condoms, but if the condom breaks, I guess I'd just have to risk my life and get pregnant because the morning after pill isn't covered either. I'm pretty sure a cashier at HL doesn't have extra money to buy the morning after pill. I guess women who work at HL and can't take birth control pills should just not have sex. Because sex is a choice, not a right, for women. Men can have all the sex they want with no responsibility or consequences, though. That's not at all sexist, right?
I don't understand how women can actually defend HL and the Court's decision. Isn't it obvious how sexist this is?
Re: Today's SCOTUS Decision
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
The issue in this case is that the ACA granted the HHA rule making authority, and the HHA adopted a contraceptive mandate. HHA granted exemptions to religious non-profits. If you work for a religious non-profit that refuses to cover contraceptives, you can obtain contraceptive coverage as follows:
"an eligible organization [one that declines to provide contraceptive coverage on religious grounds] must provide a copy of its self-certification to its third party administrator. The third party administrator must then provide or arrange separate payments for contraceptive services for the women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization. [emphasis added] The costs of such payments can be offset by adjustments in Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees paid by a health insurance issuer with which the third party administration has an arrangement."
The issue in the Hobby Lobby case was whether the government's compelling interest in providing contraceptive coverage to women through the HHS mandate met with the strict scrutiny standard required under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Court in its ruling yesterday said no, because a less restrictive means of achieving that compelling interest was possible as demonstrated through the exemptions granted to religious non-profits. In other words, before government can burden the free exercise of religion, it must have a compelling interest and the burden must be minimally restrictive.
It's fine if you want to argue that the shareholders of closely held corporations shouldn't be allowed to make business decisions that keep in line with their individually held religious views. The majority opinion explicitly said the opinion could not be read expansively to include publicly traded corporations, and the issue of whether contraception should be available at all was simply not at issue. What the court was saying is that closely held corporations should be granted the same exemption that religious non-profits have been given by the HHS. Women who work for such organizations will be able to obtain the contraceptive coverage they desire...for free.
Married Bio * BFP Charts
Throwing leaves
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
Still waiting...because I'm extremely curious about your thoughts on how HL is seemingly picking and choosing when to apply their religious beliefs.
Pushing for no reproductive rights would out them for the POSs they are. So, they do it slowly and disguise it as "religious freedom" and "pro-life".
Harry Styles = Life Ruiner
There’s a lightning in your eyes I can't deny
Then there’s me inside a sinking boat running out of time
Without you I'll never make it out alive
But I know, yes, I know we’ll be alright
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
J. 1.14.13 my reason for breathing
Kang: Abortions for all
[crowd boos]
Kang: Very well, no abortions for anyone
[crowd boos]
Kang: Hmmm...Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
[crowd cheers and waves minature flags]
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
2. What the court was saying is that closely held corporations should be granted the same exemption that religious non-profits have been given by the HHS.It is my opinion that they should not because it opens the door for closely held corporations to hide behind religion to make medical choices, without medical degrees, to save on costs. It also opens the door to allow for closely held corporations to discriminate (gender and race all have medical conditions that are specific to them) and hide behind religion as the reason. And, finally, it violates one of the primary foundations this country was founded on - a separation of church and state.
3.Women who work for such organizations will be able to obtain the contraceptive coverage they desire...for free. It is not for free because it is Federally funded by tax dollars (something that a lot of these corporations are fundamentally against), this maybe the aspect that is fought next, and it only is written to include BC, not any of the other illnesses and treatments that are going to be coming up from this decision soon.
Courtesy of Jezebel. Bolded mine.
Earlier today, five men agreed that closely held corporations with anti-birth control religious beliefs cannot be required to provide contraceptive coverage to female employees. Corporations are people, my friend. Women? Not so much.
The decision to declare women Unpeople was a narrow one; the five men agreed that corporations (people) shouldn't be able to use Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby to justify discriminating against anyone except women (lesser people-ish entities), and won't be able to use it to deny other health care besides contraception. The same religious exemption to the Affordable Care Act that applies to nonprofit organizations also applies to for-profit companies controlled by a small group of people who think birth control is black magic. This ruling applies to whore pills only. Not to blood transfusions, AIDS retrovirals, vaccines, treating infections caused by getting a SATAN RULES tattoo with an infected needle at an unsafe tattoo parlor, antibiotics purchased to fight off a nasty case of the clap caught while raw dogging a stranger in a bar bathroom. Just birth control. No matter why a woman needs it.
The five men also agreed that their ruling only applies to corporations (people) with "sincerely held" religious beliefs. You know, the kind of religious beliefs that are so sincerely anti-birth control that they invest in and profit from companies that manufacture birth control. The kind of religious beliefs that cite as justification for their beliefs a series of religious texts written before Western Medicine as we know it existed.
If corporations are people then why can't I punch one in the fucking face?
Today, five men on the Supreme Court said that women's reproductive health care is less important than a woman's boss's superstition-based prudery and moral trepidation about fornication for female pleasure. They ruled that it doesn't matter if birth control actually causes abortions; it only matters if business owners sincerely believe that birth control causes abortions. They ruled that it's okay for a corporate person to discriminate against a female semi-person and dictate that she not spend her compensation on stuff that might possibly be enabling sex without consequences, if they believe that God thinks they should. Female semi-persons who work for these company-persons can simply obtain their birth control directly through the government, say the five men of the Supreme Court, the same way female employees of religious-based nonprofits are supposed to (religious-based nonprofits, by the way, have mounted challenges to signing a piece of paper indicating that they object to birth control, because that objection would indirectly sanction their whoreployees' birth control by admitting that they weren't getting it through work. So we've got that legal clusterfuck to look forward to, now).
The five men of the Supreme Court made pains to specify that this only applies to bosses who specifically object to women who want to use a portion of their compensation to obtain a pharmaceutical that will help them not get pregnant. But the actual women of the Supreme Court — each of whom joined in dissenting from the majority Five Man Opinion — see things differently.
In a dissent I'm bound by SCOTUS commentary tradition to call "blistering," Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the decision "of startling breadth" that could unleash "havoc" on American society (in fact, Mother Jones surmises that 90% of all American businesses fit the criteria to be classified as "closely-held corporations," so, gird your loins, ladies. Literally). She wrote that for-profit companies, unlike nonprofits, don't exist to further an agenda beyond money making and therefore cannot be said to have religious beliefs, and points out that one of the forms of birth control objected to by the fact-ignoring folks at Conestoga Wood and Hobby Lobby is the IUD, which, if purchased and installed without the help of insurance, would cost about as much as a woman earning minimum wage would make in a month. "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield," she wrote.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby (and its all-female legal team) today, I suspect, because there simply aren't enough women in positions of power to counter the latest attack on contraception from the right. There aren't enough people in government — or on the Court — who know personally what it feels like to be a low-income woman who does not want to become pregnant.
None of the five men behind the majority ruling have have ever suffered from endometriosis, painful periods, dangerous pregnancies, or simply risked becoming pregnant at a time that they weren't mentally, fiscally, or physically prepared for a pregnancy. They bought Hobby Lobby's "RELIGIOUS LIBERTY!" argument despite the fact that Hobby Lobby doesn't personally object to covering vasectomies for men; their religion only applies slut panic to women. The Court won't classify Hobby Lobby's woman-only scientifically illiterate objections to contraception as "discrimination" against women. But it would be discrimination if Hobby Lobby's religious objections applied to black people or gay people. Are you following? Me neither.
Who would have guessed five schlubby law nerds would be capable of such a stunning display of mental gymnastics?
For years, it seems that the men who run things in this country have been dancing around the implication that women aren't people, at least when put up against other, more important things like men, corporations, zygotes, and male feelings. But now, finally, in the year 2014, two generations removed from the first Supreme Court case that established that states can't make it illegal to purchase contraception, five dudes on the highest court in the land have put this in writing. It's not that women don't matter, it's that they matter measurably less than a corporation's "conscience."
But everything isn't bleak doom and gloom. Not yet, at least. Women are lucky that they have Justices Beyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Bader Ginsburg in their corner (NEVER DIE, RUTH BADER GINSBURG!). Some pundits are speculating that this legal clusterfuck serves to further justify permanently decoupling health care coverage with employment at some point down the road. Others are hopeful that this case, the judicial abortion that I sincerely believe that it is, will galvanize women (and men) who don't like their bosses all up in their shit to actually vote this November.
Your boss can't stop you from doing that.
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
A corporation is not a natural person, true. No one disputes this. But, corporate personhood is a legal fiction with a very long history in this country. Our Court has simply been expanding the benefits of corporate personhood in the last decade or so. (FWIW, corporations are not formed merely for tax purposes.) Traditionally, constitutional rights are not afforded to corporations as such rights are individual. But this was not a First Amendment case - it was decided under RFRA, which does not define person as only natural persons. The case really seems to turn on the closely held aspect of their corporate structure - there are a limited number of individual shareholders whose religious views are ascertainable. Thus, as persons, they are entitled to protection under the RFRA, even when they have incorporated.
"3.Women who work for such organizations will be able to obtain the contraceptive coverage they desire...for free. It is not for free because it is Federally funded by tax dollars (something that a lot of these corporations are fundamentally against), this maybe the aspect that is fought next, and it only is written to include BC, not any of the other illnesses and treatments that are going to be coming up from this decision soon"
Where I see the attack coming next is whether the government has a compelling interest in mandating contraceptive coverage at all.
Married Bio * BFP Charts
@PrivacyWanted - so what do you think the answer is? Not trying to be argumentative, I'm genuinely curious.
I'm Catholic. I don't believe in many of the Church's stances (BCP/abortion being among the top areas of disagreement), but I believe that they have a right to say that they're not going to provide that coverage to their employees. Taking away that right would, in my eyes, absolutely crush the ideas of freedom of religion.
Again, there are many for-profit agencies associated with the Church, and they should be removed from this sort of consideration (or lose the right to any sort of federal funding, like research grants or federally subsidized student loans to students who choose to attend). The line feels blurry now, but I don't think it has to be.
I'm not sure I made any sense here...
What's next? Are corporations going to be able to form their own standing armies? Punish whistleblowers by claiming the 5th Amendment? Claim that their financial records are privileged information under the 4th?
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
Seriously, FUCK YOU. not everyone is able to go to school to get marketable talents. Doesn't mean they should be stuck with whatever shitty insurance their shitty employer provides.
Harry Styles = Life Ruiner
There’s a lightning in your eyes I can't deny
Then there’s me inside a sinking boat running out of time
Without you I'll never make it out alive
But I know, yes, I know we’ll be alright
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
J. 1.14.13 my reason for breathing
Other than moral and religious objections - what reasons would excluding coverage be needed?
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
Throwing leaves
But you better keep your legs closed, whores, if you want to take BCP because whores.
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
Throwing leaves
AND I worked for a hospital where NO birth control was covered even if you had PCOS or endo or some other medical need. I was fortunate enough to be able to afford the $100 out of pocket every month but not everybody is.
DH: 45
BFP #1 3/19/14 EDD 11/29/14 MMC D&C 4/24/14
BFP #2 12/4/14 Beta #1 218 at 12dpo Beta #2 1055 at 16dpo
Saw heartbeat 12/29. Please be a rainbow.
All welcome
The minimum wage for their full-time hourly employees is in fact $14/hour and $9.50/hour for its part-time employees.
Married Bio * BFP Charts
Throwing leaves
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
Married Bio * BFP Charts
If I swung that way, I would be half in love with you for that comment. I actually laughed, and I'm having the shittiest of shitty days.
The lower court cases are from a lot of Catholic organizations who oppose the contraception mandate entirely based on Catholic teaching regarding artificial birth control. As I understand it, the Court is simply saying that yesterday's decision didn't turn on the methods of birth control to which Hobby Lobby objected, but rather on whether the underlying religious belief from which the objection is formed is burdened by the mandate.
Married Bio * BFP Charts
That is some bullshit right there.
Unable to even.
********************
You don't understand the appeal of Benedict Cumberbatch / think he's fug / don't know who he is? WATCH SHERLOCK. Until you do, your negative opinion of him will not be taken seriously.
Throwing leaves