Hobby Lobby birth control rights case going to Supreme Court

[morbidbattlecry]

I wasn't directing it at anyone here. But the media in general. And it isn't up for debate that both sides have lied through their teeth. Nor that some of the meds in question don't do what people claimed they do. I am all for sticking it to Obama and chipping away at Obamacare. But this ruling is going to have some bad consequences. Some of which we are already starting to see being felt out. It puts businesses above people. And I for one don't like that.

Your right and the whole argument was moot to begin with. HL was against Plan B type pills not birth control. Plan B pills don't cause abortions though. And in theory the whole case should have been tossed on that fact. This is all a case of HL being dicks about things. And i guess they don't mind investing in said Plan B producing companies because they have stock in said companies for there 401k.

This religious freedom thing is getting out of hand, along with the whole states rights thing.

[brushy bill]

Yes. And, as previously stated, bad law in my opinion. Setting aside the deeply divisive issues regarding religion and abortion which are so inextricably intertwined with this particular decision, I think extending individual rights enumerated in the Constitution to corporations is in error and opens a legal Pandora's box which will bedevil us all in years to come.

Just as you think this is "bad law", I think the ACA is horrible legislation, but I am stuck with it. You're stuck with the SC decision as well.

[Belmont31R]

Yes. And, as previously stated, bad law in my opinion. Setting aside the deeply divisive issues regarding religion and abortion which are so inextricably intertwined with this particular decision, I think extending individual rights enumerated in the Constitution to corporations is in error and opens a legal Pandora's box which will bedevil us all in years to come.

Actually, having to have a business license is a man made legal construct. I fail to see how that suddenly negates any rights a business owner has. Under that logic there could be any manor of legal construct a person has to negate their rights. They've already done it with driver's licenses, and if you want a license you have to sign paperwork negating rights. I'd rather side on the side of right's rather than these licenses or legal schemes the gov comes up with which they always include a loss of right's with.


The Supreme Court, if they so choose, can do things right. Im not gonna condone some loss of rights because they might allow some further cascade of future decisions. This was the right call in this particular case. Businesses are not public utilities or under the direct control of the government for things like BC for female employees.

[Moose-Knuckle]

As it stands, it's the law. And corporations should not be permitted by the courts to cherry pick which elements of the law they adhere to based upon the religious sensibilities of the corporation's officers.

As you say, as it stands its the law.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...estoration_Act

[Moose-Knuckle]

This religious freedom thing is getting out of hand, along with the whole states rights thing.

Um, yeah well about that; the personal liberty and freedom "thing" never has gotten out of hand nor could it ever get out of hand for that matter. What has gotten out of hand is totalitarian overreach by the Federal Government along with the ignorance and apathy of those who take those liberties and freedoms for granted.

"You have to be able to tolerate what you don't necessarily like so you can be free."
~ Larry Flynt

[Waylander]

Just so I'm clear, we shouldn't create another theoretical (and frankly fictitious) Pandora's Box by challenging the ACA which originally opened a Pandora's Box? The sky isn't falling. This is a narrow ruling only applicable to closely held, private companies who have religious beliefs the ACA would violate. I think even HL's attorney admitted during arguments that they weren't talking about large public companies that suddenly have phony religious convictions just to reduce their costs.

I believe case law supported this ruling and the dissenters only used the Pandora's Box argument and ridiculous emotional knee-jerk as basis for their dissent. I wish there were more ways for corporations to systematically fight ACA being rammed down our collective throats but unfortunately I don't currently see many more options than this. So I ask myself if the ends justify the means; and in this case I can say they do without a doubt. Any method, particularly if it becomes legal precedent, chipping away at this draconian overreach of federal power is fine by me.

[Palmguy]

Then repeal the Affordable Care Act.

As it stands, it's the law. And corporations should not be permitted by the courts to cherry pick which elements of the law they adhere to based upon the religious sensibilities of the corporation's officers.

The mandate in question isn't even part of the ACA. It's an HHS regulation.

The RFRA is the law.

[streck]

As it stands, it's the law. And corporations should not be permitted by the courts to cherry pick which elements of the law they adhere to based upon the religious sensibilities of the corporation's officers.

It is important to remember that the contraception mandate was not defined in the ACA as passed. That came from HHS regulation.....

Did not see Palmguy's post before I replied.....

[montanadave]

Let me clarify my position, as it seems to have become obscured. I am not offering an endorsement of the ACA. Nor do I wish to get bogged down in the minutia of the contraceptive mandate. And I am cognizant of the fact that the majority in the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby case based their decision on the RFRA, not the 1st amendment.

My objection is to the ongoing trend, which has accelerated under the Robert's court, of further extending and expanding the individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution to corporations.

[streck]

My objection is to the ongoing trend, which has accelerated under the Robert's court, of further extending and expanding the individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution to corporations.

Corporations are legally individuals and have been since before this country even existed. This reality extends from English law.....The word Corporation is derived from the Latin word Corpus meaning "body of people".