melmichigan Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 The courts overturned a previous ruling today regarding birth control in general. The story is in Forbes here. ETA: I do not wish to rehash Hobby Lobby please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiSweet Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Not surprising in the least. I hope more radicals keep doing what they're doing for two reasons, gives Dems a better chance in elections and also might take us a bit closer to universal healthcare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Not surprising in the least. I hope more radicals keep doing what they're doing for two reasons, gives Dems a better chance in elections and also might take us a bit closer to universal healthcare. Quite honestly I expect to see single-payer come a lot sooner because of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mama Geek Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Obamacare from the get go was designed to force our country into government funded health care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiSweet Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Obamacare from the get go was designed to force our country into government funded health care. I think so too, it was a stepping stone. I wish there wasn't so much resistance against it. When I was a young mom and my exh was self-employed we did not have enough to self-insure, my ds had a multitude of food allergies that would've made the cost prohibitive. At about 4 months old dd got sick and I waited like 3 days to take her in because I was so afraid of the bill. Luckily it turned out to be nothing but a $1000 medical bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 The radicals are the people who think that it is American to force small business owners to pay for things that go against their consciences or violate their faith. They have not been forced to do this before, and should not be now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PinkyandtheBrains. Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Hobby Lobby is not a small business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 No, but the principle is the same. It's a closely held one, not a publicly held one. The ones in play are all privately owned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfknitter.# Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Hobby Lobby is not a small business.:iagree: Nor is Eden Soy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiSweet Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 The radicals are the people who think that it is American to force small business owners to pay for things that go against their consciences or violate their faith. They have not been forced to do this before, and should not be now. Not true, we all pay for things we don't want to. It's part of living in a civilized society. Pacifists still have to pay taxes to fund wars, I still have to pay so that oil companies can have corporate welfare, etc. it's just the way it is. Healthcare is not radical, it is a human necessity and very certainly part of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 YES!!!!! Good for him! Thrilled! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NASDAQ Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Well . . . that's kind of how common law works. Once SCOTUS makes a decision, the lower courts are obliged to apply it unless they can distinguish the facts in some way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Not true, we all pay for things we don't want to. It's part of living in a civilized society. Pacifists still have to pay taxes to fund wars, I still have to pay so that oil companies can have corporate welfare, etc. it's just the way it is. Healthcare is not radical, it is a human necessity and very certainly part of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. On the contrary, the objection is specifically to a new requirement, and according to our statutes, a wrongly applied one. All of these companies provided health care to their employees before, but were able to choose to provide something that was consistent with their faith and consciences. They were always generous. They always provided something that they were not legally required to supply that benefitted their employees. And they did it in such a way that it was consistent with their consciences, which our statutes call for them to be able to do. The attempted new requirements are just that--new. And they don't trump conscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 The radicals are the people who think that it is American to force small business owners to pay for things that go against their consciences or violate their faith. They have not been forced to do this before, and should not be now. We have had public accommodations laws since the Civil Rights Act(s) in the 1960's. Under these laws, small cafe owners,for example, could not discriminate against customers based on race, sex, religion, nationality, etc., even if it went against their religion. For example, they could not refuse to serve cake to a mixed-race couple, even if their religion believed that mixing of the races was sinful (as some Christian churches preached). Thus, business owners have had to put their religious beliefs aside when the beliefs conflicted with customers' (or employees') civil rights (in this case rights to public accommodations) for fifty years. This is not new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El... Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Huh. Interesting article, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Obamacare from the get go was designed to force our country into government funded health care. We can only hope it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavandula Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 On the contrary, the objection is specifically to a new requirement, and according to our statutes, a wrongly applied one. All of these companies provided health care to their employees before, but were able to choose to provide something that was consistent with their faith and consciences. They were always generous. They always provided something that they were not legally required to supply that benefitted their employees. And they did it in such a way that it was consistent with their consciences, which our statutes call for them to be able to do. The attempted new requirements are just that--new. And they don't trump conscience. You did a great job of ignoring her point, which was people and businesses have always paid for things that go against their conscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Can I ask a sincere, related question? Did insurance companies commonly cover contraceptives BEFORE Obamacare? I ask because I have always had really good insurance as a teacher (small or no copay, Rx coverage, not an HMO, etc.) but my "Cadillac" insurance has NEVER covered birth control pills. I had to pay for them out of pocket for decades. I assumed that most people did? So the idea that these companies won't pay for birth control didn't really surprise me. I thought that was the norm. Are all these lawsuits really about birth control/abortifacients or is this mostly a reaction to Obamacare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 YES!!!!! Good for him! Thrilled! You hate abortion yet lack of access to birth control leads to more abortions. Quite the puzzle to piece together for folks like yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 On the contrary, the objection is specifically to a new requirement, and according to our statutes, a wrongly applied one. All of these companies provided health care to their employees before, but were able to choose to provide something that was consistent with their faith and consciences. They were always generous. They always provided something that they were not legally required to supply that benefitted their employees. And they did it in such a way that it was consistent with their consciences, which our statutes call for them to be able to do. The attempted new requirements are just that--new. And they don't trump conscience. An odd statement considering Hobby Lobby covered these contraceptives prior to the ACA. And we force people to pay for things constantly that go against the conscience. (Like the war in Iraq for many of us.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiSweet Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 On the contrary, the objection is specifically to a new requirement, and according to our statutes, a wrongly applied one. All of these companies provided health care to their employees before, but were able to choose to provide something that was consistent with their faith and consciences. They were always generous. They always provided something that they were not legally required to supply that benefitted their employees. And they did it in such a way that it was consistent with their consciences, which our statutes call for them to be able to do. The attempted new requirements are just that--new. And they don't trump conscience. It was consistent with their consciences before the mandate? You do realize they covered it before right? And their investments are with the companies who make those very same drugs? My conscience doesn't want to do lots of things the laws require me to do, oh well. I really have started to think the HL decision was a good one though, for the reasons I said above. I think the majority of people don't want to live in a theocracy and the millennials are the least religious generation yet. So while I don't agree with the decision, it will be interesting to see how this stuff plays out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Not true, we all pay for things we don't want to. It's part of living in a civilized society. Pacifists still have to pay taxes to fund wars, I still have to pay so that oil companies can have corporate welfare, etc. it's just the way it is. Healthcare is not radical, it is a human necessity and very certainly part of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.Once taxes are paid, the money belongs to the government to spend according to official government budgetary procedures. It is no longer ny money or your money and I have no right to direct it's use. The non -tax dollars in my wallet are my own to spend as best I see fit. Funds belonging to a private corporation do not belong to the government to direct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Can I ask a sincere, related question? Did insurance companies commonly cover contraceptives BEFORE Obamacare? I ask because I have always had really good insurance as a teacher (small or no copay, Rx coverage, not an HMO, etc.) but my "Cadillac" insurance has NEVER covered birth control pills. I had to pay for them out of pocket for decades. I assumed that most people did? So the idea that these companies won't pay for birth control didn't really surprise me. I thought that was the norm. Are all these lawsuits really about birth control/abortifacients or is this mostly a reaction to Obamacare? We never in our lives had coverage for birth control even if we had wanted it, even with supposedly really good plans. I don't know many that did around here. I know some companies did, but it was not a given that a company would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiSweet Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Can I ask a sincere, related question? Did insurance companies commonly cover contraceptives BEFORE Obamacare? I ask because I have always had really good insurance as a teacher (small or no copay, Rx coverage, not an HMO, etc.) but my "Cadillac" insurance has NEVER covered birth control pills. I had to pay for them out of pocket for decades. I assumed that most people did? So the idea that these companies won't pay for birth control didn't really surprise me. I thought that was the norm. Are all these lawsuits really about birth control/abortifacients or is this mostly a reaction to Obamacare? Every insurance I've ever had has covered contraception. I've probably had about 5-6 different plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Once taxes are paid, the money belongs to the government to spend according to official government budgetary procedures. It is no longer ny money or your money and I have no right to direct it's use. The non -tax dollars in my wallet are my own to spend as best I see fit. Funds belonging to a private corporation do not belong to the government to direct. And once the premiums are paid to the insurance company it is an employee benefit and no longer the corporation's money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiSweet Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Once taxes are paid, the money belongs to the government to spend according to official government budgetary procedures. It is no longer ny money or your money and I have no right to direct it's use. The non -tax dollars in my wallet are my own to spend as best I see fit. Funds belonging to a private corporation do not belong to the government to direct. Agreed. That's why companies offer benefits that belong to the employee. It's not the companies insurance, they don't use it. The patient/employee earns it and uses it, it belongs to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsheresomewhere Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Can I ask a sincere, related question? Did insurance companies commonly cover contraceptives BEFORE Obamacare? I ask because I have always had really good insurance as a teacher (small or no copay, Rx coverage, not an HMO, etc.) but my "Cadillac" insurance has NEVER covered birth control pills. I had to pay for them out of pocket for decades. I assumed that most people did? So the idea that these companies won't pay for birth control didn't really surprise me. I thought that was the norm. Are all these lawsuits really about birth control/abortifacients or is this mostly a reaction to Obamacare? Every plan I have had for the last 15 years has covered them until about 2 years ago . Then we started getting plans that did not. The plans have been hit or miss if they cover them. Our current plan covers it. One plan did pay for Viagra. I do think it is a lot of this is a reaction to Obamacare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Can I ask a sincere, related question? Did insurance companies commonly cover contraceptives BEFORE Obamacare? I ask because I have always had really good insurance as a teacher (small or no copay, Rx coverage, not an HMO, etc.) but my "Cadillac" insurance has NEVER covered birth control pills. I had to pay for them out of pocket for decades. I assumed that most people did? So the idea that these companies won't pay for birth control didn't really surprise me. I thought that was the norm. Are all these lawsuits really about birth control/abortifacients or is this mostly a reaction to Obamacare? I had to go on BC pills when I was 19 for a medical issue and it was covered. I am 37 now and it's been covered on every single plan I've been on since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 An odd statement considering Hobby Lobby covered these contraceptives prior to the ACA. You've been misinformed. They paid for a lot of contraceptives, and continue to do so; however, they did not and now will not be forced to pay for abortifacients. They specifically avoided that in their health plan selections. There was a cover story about this case in Time magazine the week before the decision--it's fact-checked unlike a lot of the other stuff that is floating around about it. I have to say, I'm not like them, and there is a lot about them that I disagree with, but there is certainly plenty of evidence that they have made significant sacrifices for their faiths, to their own potential financial detriment. It's not just one thing. It's paying far more than required for work that could easily be considered minimum wage, entry level employment only. It's closing their stores on Sundays (nobody does that anymore... unless they have no employees). It's giving huge portions of their profits to various charities. Again, I don't agree with everything they do, and I am not like them, but I think that they are vilified to an extent that strains the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiSweet Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 You've been misinformed. They paid for a lot of contraceptives, and continue to do so; however, they did not and now will not be forced to pay for abortifacients. They specifically avoided that in their health plan selections. There was a cover story about this case in Time magazine the week before the decision--it's fact-checked unlike a lot of the other stuff that is floating around about it. I have to say, I'm not like them, and there is a lot about them that I disagree with, but there is certainly plenty of evidence that they have made significant sacrifices for their faiths, to their own potential financial detriment. It's not just one thing. It's paying far more than required for work that could easily be considered minimum wage, entry level employment only. It's closing their stores on Sundays (nobody does that anymore... unless they have no employees). It's giving huge portions of their profits to various charities. Again, I don't agree with everything they do, and I am not like them, but I think that they are vilified to an extent that strains the facts. I can't find anything that says they didn't cover iud before the mandate. Can you link it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I can't find anything that says they didn't cover iud before the mandate. Can you link it? It's in the Time mag. article I mentioned, but I have been to the Time site and can't get to it because it's not the latest issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavandula Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 So when people have multiple articles with sources we're misinformed, those people don't fact check, so on. But one magazine (with no link, of course) that supports your opinion is true. Okay.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 And proof of what they believe really is not required. Beliefs change for one thing. I'm allowed to believe very differently today than I did yesterday or will tomorrow. Currently, freedom of religion doesn't require a test of faith. Nor does it require a timed endurance of belief to be considered acceptable to believe it. Nor should it ever. I met a woman three days ago that said even though she was catholic, it wasn't until all this ACA stuff started hitting the fan that she ever really thought about her use of birth control pills. Over the last year, she has really started to completely question things and has come to the decision to stop using it. It wasn't easy for her to do that. But the fact that however long ago she did think it was okay does not at all change that now she does not. So even if it were true that HL had been funding abortions and whatever for years, it wouldn't matter. Because now they don't want to and they shouldn't have to. And I am happy dance glad the Supreme Court agreed with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 You've been misinformed. They paid for a lot of contraceptives, and continue to do so; however, they did not and now will not be forced to pay for abortifacients. They specifically avoided that in their health plan selections. There was a cover story about this case in Time magazine the week before the decision--it's fact-checked unlike a lot of the other stuff that is floating around about it. I have to say, I'm not like them, and there is a lot about them that I disagree with, but there is certainly plenty of evidence that they have made significant sacrifices for their faiths, to their own potential financial detriment. It's not just one thing. It's paying far more than required for work that could easily be considered minimum wage, entry level employment only. It's closing their stores on Sundays (nobody does that anymore... unless they have no employees). It's giving huge portions of their profits to various charities. Again, I don't agree with everything they do, and I am not like them, but I think that they are vilified to an extent that strains the facts. Really? http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/01/sally-kohn/did-hobby-lobby-once-provide-birth-control-coverag/ "The Greens re-examined the company’s health insurance policy back in 2012, shortly before filing the lawsuit. A Wall Street Journal story says they looked into their plan after being approached by an attorney from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty about possible legal action over the federal government’s contraceptives requirement. That was when, according to the company’s complaint, they were surprised to learn their prescription drug policy included two drugs, Plan B and ella, which are emergency contraceptive pills that reduce the chance of pregnancy in the days after unprotected sex. The government does not consider morning-after pills as abortifacients because they are used to prevent eggs from being fertilized (not to induce abortions once a woman is pregnant). This is not, however, what the Green family believes, which is that life begins at conception and these drugs impede the survival of fertilized eggs." The original complaint filed by the Green family: http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Hobby-Lobby-Complaint-stamped.pdf You can read part 55 where the Green family states they were covering some the drugs they now object to covering. Their claim is that they did not know previously. In the future, you may want to crosscheck your own facts a little better before calling someone out. Time magazine? Tsk tsk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 And proof of what they believe really is not required. Beliefs change for one thing. I'm allowed to believe very differently today than I did yesterday or will tomorrow. Currently, freedom of religion doesn't require a test of faith. Nor does it require a timed endurance of belief to be considered acceptable to believe it. Nor should it ever. I met a woman three days ago that said even though she was catholic, it wasn't until all this ACA stuff started hitting the fan that she ever really thought about her use of birth control pills. Over the last year, she has really started to completely question things and has come to the decision to stop using it. It wasn't easy for her to do that. But the fact that however long ago she did think it was okay does not at all change that now she does not. So even if it were true that HL had been funding abortions and whatever for years, it wouldn't matter. Because now they don't want to and they shouldn't have to. And I am happy dance glad the Supreme Court agreed with that. I am happy that she was able to make a choice to what is right for her, I am sad that so many people want to make choices harder for many women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 So when people have multiple articles with sources we're misinformed, those people don't fact check, so on. But one magazine (with no link, of course) that supports your opinion is true. Okay.. Really, is this the level of discourse that you want to have? I'm not going there. Anyone can look up the back issues of Time in their library. It's a very mainstream, widely dispersed publication. And in general, I'm just saying that Time is a pretty middle/left publication that has been around for a long time and is serious about fact checking. I consider the facts in Time to be reliable, whether I agree with their opinions or not. A lot of what I have seen floating around about these folks is conjecture or ax to grind kind of stuff, so I was glad to see that Time put so much space and effort into researching the issues. I am concerned about the increasing lack of a reputable fourth estate in our society, and I like it when the sources who still fact check weigh in on things that I'm interested in knowing more about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PinkyandtheBrains. Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Can I ask a sincere, related question? Did insurance companies commonly cover contraceptives BEFORE Obamacare? I ask because I have always had really good insurance as a teacher (small or no copay, Rx coverage, not an HMO, etc.) but my "Cadillac" insurance has NEVER covered birth control pills. I had to pay for them out of pocket for decades. I assumed that most people did? So the idea that these companies won't pay for birth control didn't really surprise me. I thought that was the norm. Are all these lawsuits really about birth control/abortifacients or is this mostly a reaction to Obamacare? Ours paid for birth control before the ACA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiSweet Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's a sincerely held belief because a lobbyist contacted them and they wanted to do their part in the fight against the president. I think there is a lot of fear going on these days because of the decreasing religious people in our society. It's scary to go from being the majority, I'm actually not being snarky here. The reason religion is so much more vocal over the last decade or so is because change is happening, and fear mongers (looking at the likes of Glenn Beck here) are pounding it into people's heads that if they don't do something about it now they'll soon be persecuted. I think this whole case and the far right wing getting more and more religious really has to do with that fear. When I was a conservative religious person I felt it too, my pastor even preached it. We had a visiting convert from Islam come and tell us that they were training men to marry our daughters and turn the world into a Muslim majority. That kind of stuff is just so harmful and terrifying and it's been completely bought. So every case like this, every thing that has to do with religion in any way, shape, or form gets treated with way more importance than the case might warrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 In any case, the point is that they didn't cover this, they were about to be forced to do so, and their lawsuit prevailed under law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 You've been misinformed. They paid for a lot of contraceptives, and continue to do so; however, they did not and now will not be forced to pay for abortifacients. They specifically avoided that in their health plan selections. One of the links I posted quoted the head of Hobby Lobby explaining how he didn't know what they covered until they got a call from the lawyer for a lobbying group who asked them about it. He then checked into it and found that they *did* cover all of those things, which HL believes to be abortifacients (scientists disagree). They changed their plan when they could and filed suit. Eta: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/01/sally-kohn/did-hobby-lobby-once-provide-birth-control-coverag/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Really, is this the level of discourse that you want to have? I'm not going there. Anyone can look up the back issues of Time in their library. It's a very mainstream, widely dispersed publication. And in general, I'm just saying that Time is a pretty middle/left publication that has been around for a long time and is serious about fact checking. I consider the facts in Time to be reliable, whether I agree with their opinions or not. A lot of what I have seen floating around about these folks is conjecture or ax to grind kind of stuff, so I was glad to see that Time put so much space and effort into researching the issues. I am concerned about the increasing lack of a reputable fourth estate in our society, and I like it when the sources who still fact check weigh in on things that I'm interested in knowing more about. I just posted you a link to the complaint filed by the Green family where they say they were covering at least some of birth control they objected to in the lawsuit. Source documents are cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 lol I just posted you a link to the complaint filed by the Green family where they say they were covering at least some of birth control they objected to in the lawsuit. Source documents are cool. I read your source as saying that they were not covering these forms once they realized that they had been doing so...and then they were about to be forced to with no recourse allowed...and then they sued. That's different from 'they were covering them when they filed and while the lawsuit was winding through the courts.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavandula Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I don't have a problem with people arguing that their opinion on the matter really changed (although I disagree with it and think it's bs). But the guy said they covered it. Dismissing sources as having an ax to grind when the guy said they covered it is a bit far out. I now have to go for the weekend so thankfully I will be missing the rest of this thread. goodbye everyone :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I read your source as saying that they were not covering these forms once they realized that they had been doing so...and then they were about to be forced to with no recourse allowed...and then they sued. That's different from 'they were covering them when they filed and while the lawsuit was winding through the courts.' Wait...where did the bolded come from? I said the Green family were covering drugs they now object to prior to the ACA. They were. They admit it. Please note they only looked at their plan to see what they were covering when a lobbyist contacted them. Yeah, those are strongly held beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I don't have a problem with people arguing that their opinion on the matter really changed (although I disagree with it and think it's bs). But the guy said they covered it. Dismissing sources as having an ax to grind when the guy said they covered it is a bit far out. I now have to go for the weekend so thankfully I will be missing the rest of this thread. goodbye everyone :) What he said was that they covered it until they realized that they were doing so, and then shifted. In the Eden case, the sources that I have seen look like they never covered any contraceptives. I want to add something here. I used birth control when I needed it. I don't oppose it. But if I did, and if I had a business with employees, I would have a hard time being told by the government that I had to pay for it for my employees. That un-American. For me, this isn't about birth control or even abortion, but rather about basic American rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 What he said was that they covered it until they realized that they were doing so, and then shifted. In the Eden case, the sources that I have seen look like they never covered any contraceptives. I want to add something here. I used birth control when I needed it. I don't oppose it. But if I did, and if I had a business with employees, I would have a hard time being told by the government that I had to pay for it for my employees. That un-American. For me, this isn't about birth control or even abortion, but rather about basic American rights. And they didn't even look at what they were covering until a lobbyist contacted them. True or false: The Green family was covering drugs they now object to prior to the ACA? You accused others of perpetuating falsehoods and now you are twisting words around instead of just admitting either what you read in Time was incorrect or you misinterpreted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Once taxes are paid, the money belongs to the government to spend according to official government budgetary procedures. It is no longer ny money or your money and I have no right to direct it's use. The non -tax dollars in my wallet are my own to spend as best I see fit. Funds belonging to a private corporation do not belong to the government to direct. This is interesting. So the taxes we pay to our government is its earnings and it is free to spend it as it pleases - even though the government is actually meant to represent the people. But individuals who earn benefits are not meant to spend their earnings as they please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Wait...where did the bolded come from? I said the Green family were covering drugs they now object to prior to the ACA. They were. They admit it. Please note they only looked at their plan to see what they were covering when a lobbyist contacted them. Yeah, those are strongly held beliefs. Do you think that it's widely known that things that are usually called contraception are abortifacients? Because I don't. (And I recognize that there is a difference of medical opinion about whether those specific contraceptives function that way, not the issue here, but noted.) However, I can easily believe that someone who opposed abortion and then found out that unbeknownst to them they were funding it would be unwilling to continue doing so. These people are not historically particularly political or on TV or whatever. I think that they deserve a much more charitable view than they are getting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 And they didn't even look at what they were covering until a lobbyist contacted them. True or false: The Green family was covering drugs they now object to prior to the ACA? You accused others of perpetuating falsehoods and now you are twisting words around instead of just admitting either what you read in Time was incorrect or you misinterpreted it. Neither? What I was saying was that they were not covering the drugs/IUD at the time of the lawsuit. That is extremely clear in the Time mag article. It talks about them thinking that the requirement would not be imposed, pretty much right up to the last minute, and filing the lawsuit kind of with their backs to the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Do you think that it's widely known that things that are usually called contraception are abortifacients? Because I don't. (And I recognize that there is a difference of medical opinion about whether those specific contraceptives function that way, not the issue here, but noted.) However, I can easily believe that someone who opposed abortion and then found out that unbeknownst to them they were funding it would be unwilling to continue doing so. These people are not historically particularly political or on TV or whatever. I think that they deserve a much more charitable view than they are getting. The Green family claims to have known what they were. And again, can you give an answer to my true or false question? You accused me of spreading misinformation and I would like an answer. And these people come across to me as hypocritical fundie nut jobs considering they fought our government for the right to deny birth control coverage (base don a belief that goes against the actual science behind those drugs) yet do business with state-affiliated businesses in China where women can be forced to have abortions against their will. It doesn't seem to me their priorities are straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts