Supremes Anti Women

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:40 pm

With a close decision splitting both political view holders, SCOTUS found 5-4 in favor of business having religious rights and struck down the Obamacare mandate that businesses must include contraception in their insurance plans. So now businesses not only are considered having the same rights as people but they also have the same religious rights as people. Go suck on a egg Ms Fluke.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:11 pm

One more reason for all women to loathe the Clintons. It's ol' Bill's fault too.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/264 ... y-decision

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:45 am

You know, there's a Constitutional question about this latest decision by SCOTUS. Are corporations now people and thus afforded the same considerations as far as the Constitution is concerned? Are we headed towards an Aristocracy because of this, something Thomas Jefferson feared would happen? And John Paul Stevens even commented on this when he was a justice.

John Paul Stevens wrote:“...the Framers took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare.”

http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-chec ... itics.html

I don't think the public welfare, namely that of American women, was being considered when those 5 justices made their decision yesterday.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 6:25 pm

what was odd was the limits upon the scope of the ruling. First, it limited such relief to ONLY companies with 50 or more employees and over half of the stock owned by five or less persons. Not a whole lot of those, overall. Second, whatever theology decides such matters, some contraceptives were covered, some weren't, and somehow Viagra is in God's plan. Further, the company in question(Hobby Lobby) sells over 80% of it's inventory from Chinese sourcing. I don't have the numbers breakdown, but I seem to recall that abortion is pretty common in China...........selective conscience, I guess.

At any rate, the SCOTUS has been doing a lot of the very narrowly defined, limited rulings, of late. Generally, the 5-4 ones. History might indicate that such are prone to being essentially overturned by far broader rulings down the road, or in some cases reinforced.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 5:00 am

Slick, where did you see 50 or more employee's? I can only find the ruling regarding closely held companies. And contrary to your "only a few" meet the parameters, try 90% of corporation meet the requirement"

“Closely held” is no niche designation: Around 90 percent of all U.S. companies are closely held, according to a Copenhagen Business School survey from 2000. "

http://www.newsweek.com/hobby-lobby-dec ... ate-256990

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:29 am

I was under the understanding that 50 or less becomes a 'small business', which is a whole different set of rules. I might be wrong, but that would seem to trump the 'closely held' part.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 9:14 am

Like I said, where do you see the number of employee's as being part of the decision?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:50 pm

woodchip wrote:Like I said, where do you see the number of employee's as being part of the decision?

because it was defined as only pertaining to closely held corporations, not to small business. All the legal analysts I heard after I came back from the beach stressed that this wouldn't affect small firms, nor most corporations.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:55 pm

I would re-check your info because most small business are closely held. Re-read my earlier reply about 90% of business are closely held.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 2:14 pm

woodchip wrote:I would re-check your info because most small business are closely held. Re-read my earlier reply about 90% of business are closely held.

from an analysis I found in a business trade site:

"Seventy-eight percent of small businesses are family-owned, according to LIMRA, an insurance trade research firm -- but only 2% of small businesses have 50 or more employees. This is key to the Hobby Lobby decision because any business with fewer than fifty employees is already exempted from the health insurance mandate under the Affordable Healthcare Act. "

also, as the ruling was VERY specific as to ONLY dealing with contraceptive coverage in insurance, don't expect a flood of other types of claims. The court wording seemed pretty resistant to stretching this decision.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 2:52 pm

I can see how anybody objecting to abortion could resent having to pay for some forms of “contraceptives” the morning after pill in fact does not avoid pregnancy, but destroys the fertilized egg instead.

So those things need to be clarified in my opinion.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 2:57 pm

the core point, Spidey, ought to be WHO GETS TO MAKE THE CHOICE. In my view, it ought to be the woman, and having the matter hindered by a goofy limitation in the insurance due to the employers religion seems unfair.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:01 pm

So a few people will have to buy their own abortion pills...big whoop.

yes, lets favor a few bucks over rights.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:04 pm

Spidey wrote:So a few people will have to buy their own abortion pills...big whoop.

yes, lets favor a few bucks over rights.

it's WHOSE rights are restricted. No laughing matter were you one of the 'few'.......and, now that you mention it, that is the ESSENCE of the US legal system: protection of the few against the tyranny of the many.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:10 pm

What a great spin, nobody’s right to get pills are being restricted here…just who has to pay for them.

Wow you really try very hard to convolute an issue…just won’t work with me.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:21 pm

Spidey wrote:What a great spin, nobody’s right to get pills are being restricted here…just who has to pay for them.

Wow you really try very hard to convolute an issue…just won’t work with me.

I see the point about paying, but isn't it just another case of a larger entity(the employer) forcing the limits upon the economically weaker women workers? Seriously, the money is less the matter than is the principle. I see the employers 'moral' point, but also the hypocrisy that they have no such qualms about buying all their saleable goods from China, which is very pro-abortion. The 'morals' are thus sort of dubious to me.

Bottom line for me(and I suspect strongly the vast majority in this nation by 2016), this is yet another reason why we should just go to single payer, cradle to grave Medicare, or something like that. No question of legality(long settled), and no subtle splitting of hairs like this decision.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 4:08 pm

Well…

Sure you could make that case, but I think the issue here is more close to home, than whether people are having abortions over in China, to further that concept you would also have to stop hiring and selling to people right here in the US that also have abortions.

How could you determine if the factory workers that make your products have abortions or not…let alone a myriad of other little things, you would need to know.

I think the issue of directly paying for something is the problem, not what people do with their own money…although I’m sure that is an issue as well…just not in this case.

But yea…hypocrisy usually rules the day.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 4:40 pm

Yeah Spidey, how long before this decision creeps into things or policies companies DON'T have to pay for?

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/h ... take-hobby

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:12 pm

This ought to piss off all those conservative open carry nuts. I'm willing to bet that this very decision will be used by companies and corporations as a justification to ban those who want to open carry their manhood, oops guns, into their place of business. After all, corporations have religious free speech rights now too. All they have to state is it's their religious freedom right to ban weapons that kill.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... its-stores

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:27 pm

TC, that banning crap was tried here in MI. Stores have a right to put up a sign banning guns in their building and did. OTOH, all those 100's of thousands off CCW holders said fine, do that and we will boycott shopping at your store. Didn't take long and ALL the signs came off the windows.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:58 pm

I see it got your hackles up woody. Two can play that game. Maybe all us women should band together and never step foot into any business that won't support contraception coverage for their women employees. There's a lot more of us than gun owners in this country and we can have quite an impact on the boycott scale. There's a spanking brand new Hobby Lobby that opened up in Albany, OR not too far from here. I do a lot of modeling and other hobbies, but I'll never step foot in the place and I'll make sure I tell other women who do hobbies to not do business there either.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Jul 06, 2014 7:34 pm

tunnelcat wrote:I see it got your hackles up woody. Two can play that game. Maybe all us women should band together and never step foot into any business that won't support contraception coverage for their women employees. There's a lot more of us than gun owners in this country and we can have quite an impact on the boycott scale. There's a spanking brand new Hobby Lobby that opened up in Albany, OR not too far from here. I do a lot of modeling and other hobbies, but I'll never step foot in the place and I'll make sure I tell other women who do hobbies to not do business there either.

You can try. I've seen what happens when women get together and one tries to tell the rest they should follow her. Meow.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Jul 06, 2014 9:53 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:I see it got your hackles up woody. Two can play that game. Maybe all us women should band together and never step foot into any business that won't support contraception coverage for their women employees. There's a lot more of us than gun owners in this country and we can have quite an impact on the boycott scale. There's a spanking brand new Hobby Lobby that opened up in Albany, OR not too far from here. I do a lot of modeling and other hobbies, but I'll never step foot in the place and I'll make sure I tell other women who do hobbies to not do business there either.
You can try. I've seen what happens when women get together and one tries to tell the rest they should follow her. Meow.

Maybe. But don't forget the sixties. We got what we wanted when we banded together and fought hard for it. When women finally wake up to the recent losses of those hard won freedoms, they'll fight for them again. Perhaps not in my lifetime, but it will happen. Freedom is always taken for granted once attained, until it's taken away.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:19 am

Excuse me.

what freedoms did you lose by this court decision?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 7:12 am

freedom of choice, to a small degree, over one's own medical decisions.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:42 am

how did this ruling affect the persons right to choose??

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:55 pm

callmeslick wrote:freedom of choice, to a small degree, over one's own medical decisions.

No, they lost the ability to have someone else pay for their medical decisions. Besides, wasn't Obamacare going to be the great provider?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 3:00 pm

note, fellas, I tried real hard to emphasize the words 'small degree'. The woman could be offered limited choices from her providers due to the limits on coverage. Yes, she could go the extra mile to know about ALL options, and pay for an out-of-pocket option with a fully informed choice. But, let's face it, most people, especially younger ones, are that savvy as medical consumers. And, if the finances aren't there(IUD option esp) that choice, while theoretically possible for her to make the choice, what is the point if she cannot afford it? As many conservatives have warned me over the years, the freedom lost might be slight, and perhaps even temporary, but we start down dangerous slopes.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 3:11 pm

The smart women would have the boy friend/guy she picked up at bar pay for her birth control.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 3:22 pm

woodchip wrote:The smart women would have the boy friend/guy she picked up at bar pay for her birth control.

what a quaint piece of misogynistic, sexist, garbage. I'll leave any further descriptives to the female members.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 3:44 pm

Doesn't planned parenthood offer "free" (government subsidized) birth control??

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:40 pm

callmeslick wrote:
woodchip wrote:The smart women would have the boy friend/guy she picked up at bar pay for her birth control.
what a quaint piece of misogynistic, sexist, garbage. I'll leave any further descriptives to the female members.

Lets just say it takes 2 to tango, but the woman is usually the one left holding the bag after that tango. In fact, here's a slew of conservative morons that need a good brain replacement because the ones they've got are full of sh*t.

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/07/7_worst ... y_partner/

CUDA wrote:Doesn't planned parenthood offer "free" (government subsidized) birth control??

Sure, if you don't live in a state where the Republicans have shut them all down.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:56 pm

tunnelcat wrote:
CUDA wrote:Doesn't planned parenthood offer "free" (government subsidized) birth control??
Sure, if you don't live in a state where the Republicans have shut them all down.

well since that hasn't happened,
really this supreme court ruling in no way affects women rights AT ALL. so all the hullabaloo about taking away women's right it's pure BS, that's what I thought. thanks for clearing that up

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 5:05 pm

CUDA wrote:Doesn't planned parenthood offer "free" (government subsidized) birth control??

in many states, yes......but, some states(guess which party controls THEIR legislatures) have essentially closed down PP.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:09 pm

Well, if the organization is worth its salt, it should go private, and stop relying on government aid.

Oh yea, that’s what big daddy government is for…so you don’t actually have to do anything yourself.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jul 08, 2014 7:00 am

Spidey wrote:Well, if the organization is worth its salt, it should go private, and stop relying on government aid.

Oh yea, that’s what big daddy government is for…so you don’t actually have to do anything yourself.

as it caters to poorer people, it is a low-income service provider. Like any other, it is reimbursed by Medicaid. Since right-wing loon legislatures can limit
WHO receives Medicaid, they can be rendered inoperable by such restrictions. It doesn't make the SLIGHTEST difference if they are public, private, or as PP is, funded by donations.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:06 am

That makes no sense, if PP is funded by private donations...why do they need Medicaid?

If it is just a process, then change it.

That was the worse argument you have ever made.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:39 am

Spidey wrote:That makes no sense, if PP is funded by private donations...why do they need Medicaid?

because the donations don't cover all costs.

If it is just a process, then change it.

That was the worse argument you have ever made.

no, it was just succinct.....and, you danced around it.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Jul 08, 2014 2:48 pm

CUDA wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:
CUDA wrote:Doesn't planned parenthood offer "free" (government subsidized) birth control??
Sure, if you don't live in a state where the Republicans have shut them all down.
well since that hasn't happened,
really this supreme court ruling in no way affects women rights AT ALL. so all the hullabaloo about taking away women's right it's pure BS, that's what I thought. thanks for clearing that up

Since PP also performs abortions, anything Republican governors or legislatures do that attacks or impacts abortion services pretty much shuts down the whole clinic, making all services unavailable to many women in many states.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08 ... tion-laws/

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jul 08, 2014 3:04 pm

I can even accept the abortion ban, if the state so desires, but shutting down access to Medicaid reimbursement is yet another case of punishing poor women via healthcare law.