Military Significant Others and Spouse Support - MilitarySOS.com
Page 1 of 13 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 124

Thread: How is this not here? Hobby lobby/supreme court/we hate women

  1. aka Milfon2Wheelz
    BraveLilToaster's Avatar
    BraveLilToaster is offline
    aka Milfon2Wheelz
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Kings Bay Ga
    Posts
    10,109


    #1

    How is this not here? Hobby lobby/supreme court/we hate women

    Advertisements
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us...raception.html


    Supreme court says we want you barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.
  2. Senior Member
    CDNTrish's Avatar
    CDNTrish is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6,437
    #2
    Yeah, this is frightening.

    TBH, I'm surprised there isn't more outrage. This is a first on some many levels.
  3. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    Tojai's Avatar
    Tojai is offline
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    St. Pete FL
    Posts
    30,026


    #3
    I just cannot quite wrap my head around the idea that a for-profit corporation is capable of HAVING a religious belief in the first place.
  4. MilitarySOS Jewel
    lavender_jane's Avatar
    lavender_jane is offline
    MilitarySOS Jewel
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,252

    #4
    I keep typing and erasing. It's very upsetting, that's all I'm going to say right now.

    The companies said they had no objection to some forms of contraception, including condoms, diaphragms, sponges, several kinds of birth control pills and sterilization surgery. Justice Ginsburg wrote that other companies may object to all contraception, and that Monday’s decision would seem to allow them to opt out of any contraception coverage.
    Does anyone have a source that lists the specific methods they objected to, if not these?
  5. Senior Member
    JaneSays's Avatar
    JaneSays is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,588
    #5
    Makes NO sense.

    It's also really disturbing. Does that mean a company founded by Jehovah's witnesses can bar their employees from receiving blood transfusions? There are many other examples and I really don't like the precedent this judgement sets.

    And also the far-right super judgey Facebook posts I've read today have me in a bad mood.
  6. Super Speshil
    SoulCupcake's Avatar
    SoulCupcake is offline
    Super Speshil
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The point of no return. Is that a duty station?
    Posts
    9,882
    #6
    It seems their beef is with Plan B, Ella and IUD (ParaGard). Some of these people are simply ignorant. Plan B is not abortifacient, and its mechanism is really not any different than daily birth control pills. It is meant to delay/interrupt ovulation, and does not abort an established pregnancy like RU-486. Some of their sources touch on the fact that one of its mechanisms can prevent a pregnancy by thinning the endometrium, but this is what a lot of hormonal birth control is believed to do. Suppress ovulation, thicken the cervical mucus and thin the endometrium. Plan B is just a higher dosage of birth control, and is really only effective when taken before ovulation, days before.

    For women who don't tolerate hormones well ParaGard is their only options. : Damn moralists and their quest to legislate their "convictions."
    Pax, Aeon
  7. Senior Member
    Amanduh's Avatar
    Amanduh is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,787
    #7
    Quote Originally Posted by lavender_jane View Post
    I keep typing and erasing. It's very upsetting, that's all I'm going to say right now.



    Does anyone have a source that lists the specific methods they objected to, if not these?
    Plan B or IUD.

    Hobby Lobby case: What birth control is affected?
  8. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    Tojai's Avatar
    Tojai is offline
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    St. Pete FL
    Posts
    30,026


    #8
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneSays View Post
    Makes NO sense.

    It's also really disturbing. Does that mean a company founded by Jehovah's witnesses can bar their employees from receiving blood transfusions? There are many other examples and I really don't like the precedent this judgement sets.

    And also the far-right super judgey Facebook posts I've read today have me in a bad mood.
    SCOTUS explicitly said that this decision applies to contraception only. They specifically used the examples of vaccines and blood transfusions as something that employers wouldn't be able to opt out of providing coverage for. So basically they singled out contraception as unworthy of the same protection, for ~reasons~ I guess.

    That is really the part that gets me. The HHS will cover the contraceptives for the women, so I'm glad that they're still going to have access to free birth control. And if SCOTUS had actually said "well, closely held corporations get the same religious protections as non-for-profit religious organizations" I would have still been pissed, but at least it would be logically consistent. The fact that this ONLY applies to a woman's issue is ... just really aggravating. It's very blatantly wanting to have their cake and eat it too, imo.
  9. sassypants
    WiggleWiggle~'s Avatar
    WiggleWiggle~ is offline
    sassypants
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Encinitas
    Posts
    8,499
    #9
    I LOVE living in a world where a corperation has more choice then a woman

    rocket_liz is my wifey
  10. Senior Member
    JaneSays's Avatar
    JaneSays is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,588
    #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojai View Post
    SCOTUS explicitly said that this decision applies to contraception only. They specifically used the examples of vaccines and blood transfusions as something that employers wouldn't be able to opt out of providing coverage for. So basically they singled out contraception as unworthy of the same protection, for ~reasons~ I guess.

    That is really the part that gets me. The HHS will cover the contraceptives for the women, so I'm glad that they're still going to have access to free birth control. And if SCOTUS had actually said "well, closely held corporations get the same religious protections as non-for-profit religious organizations" I would have still been pissed, but at least it would be logically consistent. The fact that this ONLY applies to a woman's issue is ... just really aggravating. It's very blatantly wanting to have their cake and eat it too, imo.
    I guess, but to me that is just them covering their ass. I wouldn't be surprised if later on this judgement is used as justification for making a stand on other heath care issues on the basis of religion.

    But no, you're right, the fact that it's just a "woman's issue" at the moment is even more frightening.
Page 1 of 13 123411 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •